INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to verify the results of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans. METHODS: In cooperation with the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Neuherberg, Germany), phantom measurements were performed with thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD LiF:Mg,Ti) using cranial CT protocols: (I) CT angiography; (II) unenhanced, cranial CT scans with gantry angulation at a single and (III) without gantry angulation at a dual source CT scanner. Eye lens doses calculated by the dose monitoring tool based on MCS and assessed with TLDs were compared. RESULTS: Eye lens doses are summarized as follows: (I) CT angiography (a) MCS 7 mSv, (b) TLD 5 mSv; (II) unenhanced, cranial CT scan with gantry angulation, (c) MCS 45 mSv, (d) TLD 5 mSv; (III) unenhanced, cranial CT scan without gantry angulation (e) MCS 38 mSv, (f) TLD 35 mSv. Intermodality comparison shows an inaccurate calculation of eye lens doses in unenhanced cranial CT protocols at the single source CT scanner due to the disregard of gantry angulation. On the contrary, the dose monitoring tool showed an accurate calculation of eye lens doses at the dual source CT scanner without gantry angulation and for CT angiography examinations. CONCLUSION: The dose monitoring software tool based on MCS gave accurate estimates of eye lens doses in cranial CT protocols. However, knowledge of protocol and software specific influences is crucial for correct assessment of eye lens doses in routine clinical use.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to verify the results of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans. METHODS: In cooperation with the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Neuherberg, Germany), phantom measurements were performed with thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD LiF:Mg,Ti) using cranial CT protocols: (I) CT angiography; (II) unenhanced, cranial CT scans with gantry angulation at a single and (III) without gantry angulation at a dual source CT scanner. Eye lens doses calculated by the dose monitoring tool based on MCS and assessed with TLDs were compared. RESULTS: Eye lens doses are summarized as follows: (I) CT angiography (a) MCS 7 mSv, (b) TLD 5 mSv; (II) unenhanced, cranial CT scan with gantry angulation, (c) MCS 45 mSv, (d) TLD 5 mSv; (III) unenhanced, cranial CT scan without gantry angulation (e) MCS 38 mSv, (f) TLD 35 mSv. Intermodality comparison shows an inaccurate calculation of eye lens doses in unenhanced cranial CT protocols at the single source CT scanner due to the disregard of gantry angulation. On the contrary, the dose monitoring tool showed an accurate calculation of eye lens doses at the dual source CT scanner without gantry angulation and for CT angiography examinations. CONCLUSION: The dose monitoring software tool based on MCS gave accurate estimates of eye lens doses in cranial CT protocols. However, knowledge of protocol and software specific influences is crucial for correct assessment of eye lens doses in routine clinical use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dose monitoring software tool; Eye lens dose; Monte Carlo Simulation; Phantom study; Radiation exposure
Authors: Adam C Turner; Maria Zankl; John J DeMarco; Chris H Cagnon; Di Zhang; Erin Angel; Dianna D Cody; Donna M Stevens; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: N Abdeen; S Chakraborty; T Nguyen; M P dos Santos; M Donaldson; G Heddon; B A Schwarz Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: B Keil; J Wulff; R Schmitt; D Auvanis; D Danova; J T Heverhagen; M Fiebich; B Madsack; R Leppek; K J Klose; K Zink Journal: Rofo Date: 2008-11-28
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nika Guberina; Michael Forsting; Adrian Ringelstein; Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Kai Nassenstein; Jens Theysohn; Axel Wetter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D Oldenburg; N Guberina; B Stolte; K Kizina; E Stenzel; A Radbruch; C Kleinschnitz; T Hagenacker; M Forsting; C Mönninghoff Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 2.804