Sigal Trattner1, Anjali Chelliah2, Peter Prinsen3, Carrie B Ruzal-Shapiro4, Yanping Xu5, Sachin Jambawalikar4, Maxwell Amurao6, Andrew J Einstein7. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 2. 2 Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Cardiology Division, New York-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 3. 3 Philips Healthcare Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 5. 5 Radiological Research Accelerator Facility, Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University, Irvington, NY. 6. 6 Radiation Safety Office, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 7. 7 Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division and Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, 622 W 168th St, PH 10-203A, New York, NY 10032.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the conversion factors that enable accurate estimation of the effective dose (ED) used for cardiac 64-MDCT angiography performed for children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anthropomorphic phantoms representative of 1- and 10-year-old children, with 50 metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor dosimeters placed in organs, underwent scanning performed using a 64-MDCT scanner with different routine clinical cardiac scan modes and x-ray tube potentials. Organ doses were used to calculate the ED on the basis of weighting factors published in 1991 in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publication 60 and in 2007 in ICRP publication 103. The EDs and the scanner-reported dose-length products were used to determine conversion factors for each scan mode. The effect of infant heart rate on the ED and the conversion factors was also assessed. RESULTS: The mean conversion factors calculated using the current definition of ED that appeared in ICRP publication 103 were as follows: 0.099 mSv · mGy-1 · cm-1, for the 1-year-old phantom, and 0.049 mSv · mGy-1 · cm-1, for the 10-year-old phantom. These conversion factors were a mean of 37% higher than the corresponding conversion factors calculated using the older definition of ED that appeared in ICRP publication 60. Varying the heart rate did not influence the ED or the conversion factors. CONCLUSION: Conversion factors determined using the definition of ED in ICRP publication 103 and cardiac, rather than chest, scan coverage suggest that the radiation doses that children receive from cardiac CT performed using a contemporary 64-MDCT scanner are higher than the radiation doses previously reported when older chest conversion factors were used. Additional up-to-date pediatric cardiac CT conversion factors are required for use with other contemporary CT scanners and patients of different age ranges.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the conversion factors that enable accurate estimation of the effective dose (ED) used for cardiac 64-MDCT angiography performed for children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anthropomorphic phantoms representative of 1- and 10-year-old children, with 50 metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor dosimeters placed in organs, underwent scanning performed using a 64-MDCT scanner with different routine clinical cardiac scan modes and x-ray tube potentials. Organ doses were used to calculate the ED on the basis of weighting factors published in 1991 in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publication 60 and in 2007 in ICRP publication 103. The EDs and the scanner-reported dose-length products were used to determine conversion factors for each scan mode. The effect of infant heart rate on the ED and the conversion factors was also assessed. RESULTS: The mean conversion factors calculated using the current definition of ED that appeared in ICRP publication 103 were as follows: 0.099 mSv · mGy-1 · cm-1, for the 1-year-old phantom, and 0.049 mSv · mGy-1 · cm-1, for the 10-year-old phantom. These conversion factors were a mean of 37% higher than the corresponding conversion factors calculated using the older definition of ED that appeared in ICRP publication 60. Varying the heart rate did not influence the ED or the conversion factors. CONCLUSION: Conversion factors determined using the definition of ED in ICRP publication 103 and cardiac, rather than chest, scan coverage suggest that the radiation doses that children receive from cardiac CT performed using a contemporary 64-MDCT scanner are higher than the radiation doses previously reported when older chest conversion factors were used. Additional up-to-date pediatric cardiac CT conversion factors are required for use with other contemporary CT scanners and patients of different age ranges.
Authors: Tobias F Jakobs; Christoph R Becker; Bernd Ohnesorge; Thomas Flohr; Christoph Suess; Uwe J Schoepf; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Terry T Yoshizumi; Philip C Goodman; Donald P Frush; Giao Nguyen; Greta Toncheva; Maksudur Sarder; Lottie Barnes Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sigal Trattner; Bin Cheng; Radoslaw L Pieniazek; Udo Hoffmann; Pamela S Douglas; Andrew J Einstein Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Caroline L Hollingsworth; Terry T Yoshizumi; Donald P Frush; Frandics P Chan; Greta Toncheva; Giao Nguyen; Carolyn R Lowry; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Edward Hulten; Christopher Pickett; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Todd C Villines; Sara Petrillo; Marcelo F Di Carli; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: N Journy; J-L Rehel; H Ducou Le Pointe; C Lee; H Brisse; J-F Chateil; S Caer-Lorho; D Laurier; M-O Bernier Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
Authors: Sigal Trattner; Sandra Halliburton; Carla M Thompson; Yanping Xu; Anjali Chelliah; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Boyu Peng; M Robert Peters; Jill E Jacobs; Munir Ghesani; James J Jang; Hussein Al-Khalidi; Andrew J Einstein Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: Cynthia K Rigsby; Sarah E McKenney; Kevin D Hill; Anjali Chelliah; Andrew J Einstein; B Kelly Han; Joshua D Robinson; Christina L Sammet; Timothy C Slesnick; Donald P Frush Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: Yiming Gao; Usman Mahmood; Tianyu Liu; Brian Quinn; Marc J Gollub; X George Xu; Lawrence T Dauer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Theodor Adla; Martin Kočí; Vojtěch Suchánek; Zuzana Šalagovičová; Michal Polovinčák; Lukáš Mikšík; Jan Janoušek; Miloslav Roček Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-08-05
Authors: Kevin D Hill; Donald P Frush; B Kelly Han; Brian G Abbott; Aimee K Armstrong; Robert A DeKemp; Andrew C Glatz; S Bruce Greenberg; Alexander Sheldon Herbert; Henri Justino; Douglas Mah; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Cynthia K Rigsby; Timothy C Slesnick; Keith J Strauss; Sigal Trattner; Mohan N Viswanathan; Andrew J Einstein Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-05-18