Philipp Roser1,2, Annette Birkhold3, Xia Zhong4, Philipp Ochs3, Elizaveta Stepina3, Markus Kowarschik3, Rebecca Fahrig3, Andreas Maier4,5. 1. Pattern Recognition Lab, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. philipp.roser@fau.de. 2. Erlangen Graduate School in Advanced Optical Technologies (SAOT), Erlangen, Germany. philipp.roser@fau.de. 3. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany. 4. Pattern Recognition Lab, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Erlangen Graduate School in Advanced Optical Technologies (SAOT), Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With X-ray radiation protection and dose management constantly gaining interest in interventional radiology, novel procedures often undergo prospective dose studies using anthropomorphic phantoms to determine expected reference organ-equivalent dose values. Due to inherent uncertainties, such as impact of exact patient positioning, generalized geometry of the phantoms, limited dosimeter positioning options, and composition of tissue-equivalent materials, these dose values might not allow for patient-specific risk assessment. Therefore, first the aim of this study is to quantify the influence of these parameters on local X-ray dose to evaluate their relevance in the assessment of patient-specific organ doses. Second, this knowledge further enables validating a simulation approach, which allows employing physiological material models and patient-specific geometries. METHODS: Phantom dosimetry experiments using MOSFET dosimeters were conducted reproducing imaging scenarios in prostatic arterial embolization (PAE). Associated organ-equivalent dose of prostate, bladder, colon, and skin was determined. Dose deviation induced by possible small displacements of the patient was reproduced by moving the X-ray source. Dose deviation induced by geometric and material differences was investigated by analyzing two different commonly used phantoms. We reconstructed the experiments using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, a reference male geometry, and different material properties to validate simulations and experiments against each other. RESULTS: Overall, MC-simulated organ dose values are in accordance with the measured ones for the majority of cases. Marginal displacements of X-ray source relative to the phantoms lead to deviations of 6-135% in organ dose values, while skin dose remains relatively constant. Regarding the impact of phantom material composition, underestimation of internal organ dose values by 12-20% is prevalent in all simulated phantoms. Skin dose, however, can be estimated with low deviation of 1-8% at least for two materials. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective reference dose studies might not extend to precise patient-specific dose assessment. Therefore, online organ dose assessment tools, based on advanced patient modeling and MC methods, are desirable.
PURPOSE: With X-ray radiation protection and dose management constantly gaining interest in interventional radiology, novel procedures often undergo prospective dose studies using anthropomorphic phantoms to determine expected reference organ-equivalent dose values. Due to inherent uncertainties, such as impact of exact patient positioning, generalized geometry of the phantoms, limited dosimeter positioning options, and composition of tissue-equivalent materials, these dose values might not allow for patient-specific risk assessment. Therefore, first the aim of this study is to quantify the influence of these parameters on local X-ray dose to evaluate their relevance in the assessment of patient-specific organ doses. Second, this knowledge further enables validating a simulation approach, which allows employing physiological material models and patient-specific geometries. METHODS: Phantom dosimetry experiments using MOSFET dosimeters were conducted reproducing imaging scenarios in prostatic arterial embolization (PAE). Associated organ-equivalent dose of prostate, bladder, colon, and skin was determined. Dose deviation induced by possible small displacements of the patient was reproduced by moving the X-ray source. Dose deviation induced by geometric and material differences was investigated by analyzing two different commonly used phantoms. We reconstructed the experiments using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, a reference male geometry, and different material properties to validate simulations and experiments against each other. RESULTS: Overall, MC-simulated organ dose values are in accordance with the measured ones for the majority of cases. Marginal displacements of X-ray source relative to the phantoms lead to deviations of 6-135% in organ dose values, while skin dose remains relatively constant. Regarding the impact of phantom material composition, underestimation of internal organ dose values by 12-20% is prevalent in all simulated phantoms. Skin dose, however, can be estimated with low deviation of 1-8% at least for two materials. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective reference dose studies might not extend to precise patient-specific dose assessment. Therefore, online organ dose assessment tools, based on advanced patient modeling and MC methods, are desirable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anthropomorphic phantom; Dosimetry; MOSFET; Monte Carlo simulation; Prostatic artery embolization
Authors: João M Pisco; Tiago Bilhim; Luis C Pinheiro; Lucia Fernandes; Jose Pereira; Nuno V Costa; Marisa Duarte; António G Oliveira Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Juha H Koivisto; Jan E Wolff; Timo Kiljunen; Dirk Schulze; Mika Kortesniemi Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102