Brian Quinn1, Zak Dauer2, Neeta Pandit-Taskar3, Heiko Schoder3, Lawrence T Dauer2,3. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Box 84, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. quinnb@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Box 84, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is the standard of care in oncologic diagnosis and staging, and patient radiation dose must be well understood to balance exam benefits with the risk from radiation exposure. Although reference PET/CT patient doses are available, the potential for widely varying total dose prompts evaluation of clinic-specific patient dose. The aims of this study were to use exam-specific information to characterize the radiation dosimetry of PET/CT exams that used two different CT techniques for adult oncology patients and evaluate the practicality of employing an exam-specific approach to dose estimation. METHODS: Whole body PET/CT scans from two sets of consecutive adult patients were retrospectively reviewed. One set received a PET scan with a standard registration CT and the other a PET scan with a diagnostic quality CT. PET dose was calculated by modifying the standard reference phantoms in OLINDA/EXM 1.1 with patient-specific organ mass. CT dose was calculated using patient-specific data in ImPACT. International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 tissue weighting coefficients were used for effective dose. RESULTS: One hundred eighty three adult scans were evaluated (95 men, 88 women). The mean patient-specific effective dose from a mean injected 18F-FDG activity of 450 ± 32 MBq was 9.0 ± 1.6 mSv. For all standard PET/CT patients, mean effective mAs was 39 ± 11 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 5.0 ± 1.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 14 ± 1.3 mSv. For all diagnostic PET/CT patients, mean effective mAs was 120 ± 51 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 15.4 ± 5.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 24.4 ± 4.3 mSv. The five organs receiving the highest organ equivalent doses in all exams were bladder, heart, brain, liver and lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific parameters optimize the patient dosimetry utilized in the medical justification of whole body PET/CT referrals and optimization of PET and CT acquisition parameters. Incorporating patient-specific data into dose estimates is a worthwhile effort for characterizing patient dose, and the specific dosimetric information assists in the justification of risk and optimization of PET/CT.
BACKGROUND: Whole body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is the standard of care in oncologic diagnosis and staging, and patient radiation dose must be well understood to balance exam benefits with the risk from radiation exposure. Although reference PET/CTpatient doses are available, the potential for widely varying total dose prompts evaluation of clinic-specific patient dose. The aims of this study were to use exam-specific information to characterize the radiation dosimetry of PET/CT exams that used two different CT techniques for adult oncology patients and evaluate the practicality of employing an exam-specific approach to dose estimation. METHODS: Whole body PET/CT scans from two sets of consecutive adult patients were retrospectively reviewed. One set received a PET scan with a standard registration CT and the other a PET scan with a diagnostic quality CT. PET dose was calculated by modifying the standard reference phantoms in OLINDA/EXM 1.1 with patient-specific organ mass. CT dose was calculated using patient-specific data in ImPACT. International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 tissue weighting coefficients were used for effective dose. RESULTS: One hundred eighty three adult scans were evaluated (95 men, 88 women). The mean patient-specific effective dose from a mean injected 18F-FDG activity of 450 ± 32 MBq was 9.0 ± 1.6 mSv. For all standard PET/CTpatients, mean effective mAs was 39 ± 11 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 5.0 ± 1.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 14 ± 1.3 mSv. For all diagnostic PET/CTpatients, mean effective mAs was 120 ± 51 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 15.4 ± 5.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 24.4 ± 4.3 mSv. The five organs receiving the highest organ equivalent doses in all exams were bladder, heart, brain, liver and lungs. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-specific parameters optimize the patient dosimetry utilized in the medical justification of whole body PET/CT referrals and optimization of PET and CT acquisition parameters. Incorporating patient-specific data into dose estimates is a worthwhile effort for characterizing patient dose, and the specific dosimetric information assists in the justification of risk and optimization of PET/CT.
Authors: Farida Aimi Mustapha; Farahnaz Ahmad Anwar Bashah; Ihsan M Yassin; Ahmad Saad Fathinul Fikri; Abdul Jalil Nordin; Hairil Rashmizal Abdul Razak Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2017-06
Authors: Pedro Brugarolas; Moses Q Wilks; Jacqueline Noel; Julia-Ann Kaiser; Danielle R Vesper; Karla M Ramos-Torres; Nicolas J Guehl; Marina T Macdonald-Soccorso; Yang Sun; Peter A Rice; Daniel L Yokell; Ruth Lim; Marc D Normandin; Georges El Fakhri Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jacob K Jensen; Johanne S Madsen; Malte E K Jensen; Andreas Kjaer; Rasmus S Ripa Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Paula Demétrio De Souza França; Reiko Nakajima; Eva Burnazi; Sheryl Roberts; Christian Brand; Milan Grkovski; Audrey Mauguen; Mark P Dunphy; Ronald A Ghossein; Serge K Lyashchenko; Jason S Lewis; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Ian Ganly; Snehal G Patel; Nancy Y Lee; Thomas Reiner Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lienard A Chang; Donald L Miller; Choonsik Lee; Dunstana R Melo; Daphnée Villoing; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Sarah J Winters; Michael Labrake; Charles F Myers; Hyeyeun Lim; Cari M Kitahara; Martha S Linet; Steven L Simon Journal: Health Phys Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Yangjie Huang; Ning Zhao; Yung-Hua Wang; Charles Truillet; Junnian Wei; Matthew F L Parker; Joseph E Blecha; Christopher R Drake; Henry F VanBrocklin; Diego Garrido-Ruiz; Matthew P Jacobson; Rahul Aggarwal; Spencer C Behr; Robert R Flavell; David M Wilson; Youngho Seo; Michael J Evans Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nicolas J Guehl; Karla M Ramos-Torres; Clas Linnman; Sung-Hyun Moon; Maeva Dhaynaut; Moses Q Wilks; Paul K Han; Chao Ma; Ramesh Neelamegam; Yu-Peng Zhou; Brian Popko; John A Correia; Daniel S Reich; Georges El Fakhri; Peter Herscovitch; Marc D Normandin; Pedro Brugarolas Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 6.200