Sigal Trattner1, Sandra Halliburton2, Carla M Thompson3, Yanping Xu4, Anjali Chelliah5, Sachin R Jambawalikar6, Boyu Peng6, M Robert Peters7, Jill E Jacobs8, Munir Ghesani9, James J Jang10, Hussein Al-Khalidi11, Andrew J Einstein12. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 2. Imaging Institute, Division of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Imaging Institute, Division of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, and Lerner Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, and Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Radiological Research Accelerator Facility, Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, Irvington, New York. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, New York-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital, and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 7. Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging, New York, New York. 8. Section of Cardiac Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, and New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 9. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, New York University, and New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 10. Division of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, California. 11. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 12. Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division, and Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. Electronic address: andrew.einstein@columbia.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine updated conversion factors (k-factors) that would enable accurate estimation of radiation effective dose (ED) for coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and calcium scoring performed on 12 contemporary scanner models and current clinical cardiac protocols and to compare these methods to the standard chest k-factor of 0.014 mSv·mGy-1cm-1. BACKGROUND: Accurate estimation of ED from cardiac CT scans is essential to meaningfully compare the benefits and risks of different cardiac imaging strategies and optimize test and protocol selection. Presently, ED from cardiac CT is generally estimated by multiplying a scanner-reported parameter, the dose-length product, by a k-factor which was determined for noncardiac chest CT, using single-slice scanners and a superseded definition of ED. METHODS: Metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor radiation detectors were positioned in organs of anthropomorphic phantoms, which were scanned using all cardiac protocols, 120 clinical protocols in total, on 12 CT scanners representing the spectrum of scanners from 5 manufacturers (GE, Hitachi, Philips, Siemens, Toshiba). Organ doses were determined for each protocol, and ED was calculated as defined in International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103. Effective doses and scanner-reported dose-length products were used to determine k-factors for each scanner model and protocol. RESULTS: k-Factors averaged 0.026 mSv·mGy-1cm-1 (95% confidence interval: 0.0258 to 0.0266) and ranged between 0.020 and 0.035 mSv·mGy-1cm-1. The standard chest k-factor underestimates ED by an average of 46%, ranging from 30% to 60%, depending on scanner, mode, and tube potential. Factors were higher for prospective axial versus retrospective helical scan modes, calcium scoring versus coronary CTA, and higher (100 to 120 kV) versus lower (80 kV) tube potential and varied among scanner models (range of average k-factors: 0.0229 to 0.0277 mSv·mGy-1cm-1). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac k-factors for all scanners and protocols are considerably higher than the k-factor currently used to estimate ED of cardiac CT studies, suggesting that radiation doses from cardiac CT have been significantly and systematically underestimated. Using cardiac-specific factors can more accurately inform the benefit-risk calculus of cardiac-imaging strategies.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine updated conversion factors (k-factors) that would enable accurate estimation of radiation effective dose (ED) for coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and calcium scoring performed on 12 contemporary scanner models and current clinical cardiac protocols and to compare these methods to the standard chest k-factor of 0.014 mSv·mGy-1cm-1. BACKGROUND: Accurate estimation of ED from cardiac CT scans is essential to meaningfully compare the benefits and risks of different cardiac imaging strategies and optimize test and protocol selection. Presently, ED from cardiac CT is generally estimated by multiplying a scanner-reported parameter, the dose-length product, by a k-factor which was determined for noncardiac chest CT, using single-slice scanners and a superseded definition of ED. METHODS:Metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor radiation detectors were positioned in organs of anthropomorphic phantoms, which were scanned using all cardiac protocols, 120 clinical protocols in total, on 12 CT scanners representing the spectrum of scanners from 5 manufacturers (GE, Hitachi, Philips, Siemens, Toshiba). Organ doses were determined for each protocol, and ED was calculated as defined in International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103. Effective doses and scanner-reported dose-length products were used to determine k-factors for each scanner model and protocol. RESULTS: k-Factors averaged 0.026 mSv·mGy-1cm-1 (95% confidence interval: 0.0258 to 0.0266) and ranged between 0.020 and 0.035 mSv·mGy-1cm-1. The standard chest k-factor underestimates ED by an average of 46%, ranging from 30% to 60%, depending on scanner, mode, and tube potential. Factors were higher for prospective axial versus retrospective helical scan modes, calcium scoring versus coronary CTA, and higher (100 to 120 kV) versus lower (80 kV) tube potential and varied among scanner models (range of average k-factors: 0.0229 to 0.0277 mSv·mGy-1cm-1). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac k-factors for all scanners and protocols are considerably higher than the k-factor currently used to estimate ED of cardiac CT studies, suggesting that radiation doses from cardiac CT have been significantly and systematically underestimated. Using cardiac-specific factors can more accurately inform the benefit-risk calculus of cardiac-imaging strategies.
Authors: Jacob Geleijns; Raoul M S Joemai; Marc Dewey; Albert de Roos; Maria Zankl; Alfonso Calzado Cantera; Marçal Salvadó Artells Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Carl D Elliston; Andrew E Arai; Marcus Y Chen; Richard Mather; Gregory D N Pearson; Robert L Delapaz; Edward Nickoloff; Ajoy Dutta; David J Brenner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Michael T Lu; Pamela S Douglas; James E Udelson; Elizabeth Adami; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Michael H Picard; Rhonda Roberts; Kerry L Lee; Andrew J Einstein; Daniel B Mark; Eric J Velazquez; William Carter; Michael Ridner; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Udo Hoffmann Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2017-08-15
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Ryo Nakazato; G B John Mancini; Heidi Gransar; Jonathon Leipsic; Daniel S Berman; James K Min Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-02-17
Authors: Martin Hadamitzky; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Daniel Berman; Matthew Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Cheng; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo Cury; Augustin Delago; Allison Dunning; Gudrun Feuchtner; Millie Gomez; Philipp Kaufmann; Yong-Jin Kim; Jonathon Leipsic; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; James K Min; Gil Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Todd C Villines; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Thomas J Stocker; Simon Deseive; Jonathon Leipsic; Martin Hadamitzky; Marcus Y Chen; Ronen Rubinshtein; Mathias Heckner; Jeroen J Bax; Xiang-Ming Fang; Erik Lerkevang Grove; John Lesser; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; James Otton; Sanghoon Shin; Gianluca Pontone; Hugo Marques; Benjamin Chow; Cesar H Nomura; Ramzi Tabbalat; Axel Schmermund; Joon-Won Kang; Christopher Naoum; Melany Atkins; Eugenio Martuscelli; Steffen Massberg; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Daria Frestad Bechsgaard; Ida Gustafsson; Marie Mide Michelsen; Naja Dam Mygind; Kristoffer Flintholm Raft; Jesper James Linde; Klaus Fuglsang Kofoed; Fay Yu-Huei Lin; James K Min; Eva Prescott; Jens Dahlgaard Hove Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: S Oebel; S Hamada; K Higashigaito; J von Spiczak; E Klotz; F Enseleit; R Hinzpeter; F Ruschitzka; R Manka; H Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 5.315