1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/11/10.1118/1.4754584
1.
1. F. V. Coakley, R. Gould, B. M. Yeh, and R. L. Arenson, “CT radiation dose: What can you do right now in your practice?” AJR, Am. J. Roentgenol. 196, 619625 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5043
2.
2. L. Berlin, “To order or not to order a CT examination because of radiation exposure: That is the question,” AJR, Am. J. Roentgenol. 196, W216 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5527
3.
3. H. Hricak, D. J. Brenner, S. J. Adelstein, D. P. Frush, E. J. Hall, R. W. Howell, C. H. McCollough, F. A. Mettler, M. S. Pearce, O. H. Suleiman, J. H. Thrall, and L. K. Wagner, “Managing radiation use in medical imaging: A multifaceted challenge,” Radiology 258, 889905 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101157
4.
4.NCRP, “Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States,” NCRP Report No. 160 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, 2009).
5.
5. K. J. Strauss, M. J. Goske, D. P. Frush, P. F. Butler, and G. Morrison, “Image Gently Vendor Summit: Working together for better estimates of pediatric radiation dose from CT,” AJR, Am. J. Roentgenol. 192, 11691175 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2172
6.
6. X. Li, E. Samei, W. P. Segars, G. M. Sturgeon, J. G. Colsher, G. Toncheva, T. T. Yoshizumi, and D. P. Frush, “Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: Part II. Application to patients,” Med. Phys. 38, 408419 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3515864
7.
7. X. Li, E. Samei, W. P. Segars, G. M. Sturgeon, J. G. Colsher, and D. P. Frush, “Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk for pediatric chest CT,” Radiology 259, 862874 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101900
8.
8. P. Shrimpton, Assessment of Patient Dose in CT, NRPB-PE/1/2004, NRPB, Chilton, 2004.
9.
9. W. Huda, K. M. Ogden, and M. R. Khorasani, “Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT,” Radiology 248, 9951003 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071964
10.
10. A. C. Turner, D. Zhang, M. Khatonabadi, M. Zankl, J. J. DeMarco, C. H. Cagnon, D. D. Cody, D. M. Stevens, C. H. McCollough, and M. F. McNitt-Gray, “The feasibility of patient size-corrected, scanner-independent organ dose estimates for abdominal CT exams,” Med. Phys. 38, 820829 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3533897
11.
11.AAPM, “The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT,” AAPM Report No. 96 (American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, 2008).
12.
12. J. A. Christner, J. M. Kofler, and C. H. McCollough, “Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: Consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning,” AJR, Am. J. Roentgenol. 194, 881889 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3462
13.
13. A. C. Turner, M. Zankl, J. J. DeMarco, C. H. Cagnon, D. Zhang, E. Angel, D. D. Cody, D. M. Stevens, C. H. McCollough, and M. F. McNitt-Gray, “The feasibility of a scanner-independent technique to estimate organ dose from MDCT scans: Using CTDIvol to account for differences between scanners,” Med. Phys. 37, 18161825 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3368596
14.
14.AAPM, “Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations,” AAPM Report No. 204 (American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, 2011).
16.
16. W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, “Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm,” Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1987), pp. 163169.
17.
17. W. P. Segars, G. Sturgeon, S. Mendonca, J. Grimes, and B. M. Tsui, “4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research,” Med. Phys. 37, 49024915 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3480985
18.
18. M. F. Beg, M. I. Miller, A. Trouve, and L. Younes, “Computing large deformation metric mappings via geodesic flows of diffeomorphisms,” Int. J. Comput. Vis. 61, 139157 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:VISI.0000043755.93987.aa
19.
19. W. P. Segars, G. Sturgeon, X. Li, L. Cheng, C. Ceritoglu, J. T. Ratnanather, M. I. Miller, B. M. W. Tsui, D. P. Frush, and E. Samei, “Patient specific computerized phantoms to estimate dose in pediatric CT,” Proc. SPIE 7258, 72580H (2009).
20.
20. D. J. Tward, C. Ceritoglu, A. Kolasny, G. M. Sturgeon, W. P. Segars, M. I. Miller, and J. T. Ratnanather, “Patient specific dosimetry phantoms using multichannel LDDMM of the whole body,” Int. J. Biomed. Imaging 2011, 481064 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/481064
21.
21. D. J. Tward, C. Ceritoglu, G. Sturgeon, W. P. Segars, M. I. Miller, and J. T. Ratnanather, “Generating patient-specific dosimetry phantoms with whole-body diffeomorphic image registration,” Proceedings of the 37th Annual NorthEast Bioengineering Conference (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Troy, NY, 2011).
22.
22.ICRP, “Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: Reference values,” ICRP Publication 89 (International Commission on Radiological Protection, New York, 2002).
23.
23.ICRP, “The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 103 (International Commission on Radiological Protection, Essen, Germany, 2007).
24.
24. X. Li, E. Samei, W. P. Segars, G. M. Sturgeon, J. G. Colsher, G. Toncheva, T. T. Yoshizumi, and D. P. Frush, “Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: Part I. Development and validation of a Monte Carlo program,” Med. Phys. 38, 397407 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3515839
25.
25. A. J. van der Molen and J. Geleijns, “Overranging in multisection CT: Quantification and relative contribution to dose–comparison of four 16-section CT scanners,” Radiology 242, 208216 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2421051350
26.
26. M. Cristy and K. F. Eckerman, “Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources,” ORNL/TM-8381/Vol. I–VII (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1987).
27.
27. C. Lee, A. P. Shah, and W. E. Bolch, “An assessment of bone marrow and bone endosteum dosimetry methods for photon sources,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 53915407 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/21/001
28.
28. D. J. Brenner, “Effective dose: A flawed concept that could and should be replaced,” Br. J. Radiol. 81, 521523 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/22942198
29.
29.National Research Council, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation—BEIR VII (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006).
30.
30. B. Rosner, Fundamentals of Biostatistics, 6th ed. (Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA, 2006).
31.
31. T. S. Cook, S. Zimmerman, A. D. Maidment, W. Kim, and W. W. Boonn, “Automated extraction of radiation dose information for CT examinations,” J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 7, 871877 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2010.06.026
32.
32. X. Li, D. Zhang, and B. Liu, “Automated extraction of radiation dose information from CT dose report images,” AJR, Am. J. Roentgenol. 196, W781W783 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5718
33.
33. O. Christianson, X. Li, D. F. Frush, and E. Samei, “Automated size-specific CT dose monitoring system: Assessing variability in CT dose,” Med. Phys. (in press).
34.
34. E. S. Amis Jr., P. F. Butler, K. E. Applegate, S. B. Birnbaum, L. F. Brateman, J. M. Hevezi, F. A. Mettler, R. L. Morin, M. J. Pentecost, G. G. Smith, K. J. Strauss, and R. K. Zeman, “American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine,” J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 4, 272284 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.03.002
35.
35. D. Brenner and W. Huda, “Effective dose: A useful concept in diagnostic radiology?” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 128, 503508 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncn056
36.
36. C. J. Martin, “Effective dose: How should it be applied to medical exposures?” Br. J. Radiol. 80, 639647 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/25922439
37.
37. C. J. Martin, “The application of effective dose to medical exposures,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 128, 14 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncm425
38.
38. C. Borras, W. Huda, and C. G. Orton, “Point/counterpoint: The use of effective dose for medical procedures is inappropriate,” Med. Phys. 37, 34973500 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3377778
39.
39. W. Huda, J. V. Atherton, D. E. Ware, and W. A. Cumming, “An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients,” Radiology 203, 417422 (1997).
40.
40. J. J. DeMarco, C. H. Cagnon, D. D. Cody, D. M. Stevens, C. H. McCollough, M. Zankl, E. Angel, and M. F. McNitt-Gray, “Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: Effects of different size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 25832597 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/9/017
41.
41. A. Ding, M. M. Mille, T. Liu, P. F. Caracappa, and X. G. Xu, “Extension of RPI-adult male and female computational phantoms to obese patients and a Monte Carlo study of the effect on CT imaging dose,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 24412459 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/9/2441
42.
42. J. Menke, “Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults,” Radiology 236, 565571 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2362041327
43.
43. W. Huda, E. M. Scalzetti, and M. Roskopf, “Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations,” Med. Phys. 27, 838844 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598949
44.
44. W. Huda, A. Sterzik, S. Tipnis, and U. J. Schoepf, “Organ doses to adult patients for chest CT,” Med. Phys. 37, 842847 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3298015
45.
45. J. Hsieh, Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances (SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA, 2003).
46.
46. X. Li, E. Samei, R. Raupach, B. Schmidt, X. Zhou, C. H. Williams, W. P. Segars, E. K. Paulson, and D. P. Frush, “The effect of tube current modulation on dose and risk conversion coefficients in CT,” 97th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, IL, 2011).
47.
47.BMI Classification, World Health Organization. http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_3.html. Last accessed December 2011.
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/11/10.1118/1.4754584
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/11/10.1118/1.4754584
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/11/10.1118/1.4754584
2012-10-08
2015-04-20

Abstract

Purpose:

In computed tomography(CT),organdose, effective dose, and risk index can be estimated from volume-weighted CTdose index (CTDIvol) or dose-length product (DLP) using conversion coefficients. Studies have investigated how these coefficients vary across scanner models, scan parameters, and patient size. However, their variability across CT protocols has not been systematically studied. Furthermore, earlier studies of the effect of patient size have not included obese individuals, which currently represent more than one-third of U.S. adults. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of protocol and obesity on dose and risk conversion coefficients in adult body CT.

Methods:

Whole-body computational phantoms were created from clinical CTimages of six adult patients (three males, three females), representing normal-weight patients and patients of three obesity classes. Body CT protocols at our institution were selected and categorized into ten examination categories based on anatomical region examined. A validated Monte Carlo program was used to estimate organdose.Organdose estimates were normalized by CTDIvol and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) to obtain organdose conversion coefficients (denoted as h and h ss factors, respectively). Assuming each phantom to be 20, 40, and 60 years old, effective dose and risk index were calculated and normalized by DLP to obtain effective dose and risk index conversion coefficients (denoted as k and q factors, respectively). Coefficient of variation was used to quantify the variability of each conversion coefficient across examination categories. The effect of obesity was assessed by comparing each obese phantom with the normal-weight phantom of the same gender.

Results:

For a given organ, the variability ofh factor across examination categories that encompassed the entire organ volume was generally within 15%. However, k factor varied more across examination categories (15%–27%). For all three ages, the variability of q factor was small for male (<10%), but large for female phantoms (21%–43%). Relative to the normal-weight phantoms, the reduction in h factor (an average across fully encompassed organs) was 17%–42%, 17%–40%, and 51%–63% for obese-class-I, obese-class-II, and obese-class-III phantoms, respectively. h ss factor was not independent of patient diameter and generally decreased with increasing obesity. Relative to the normal-weight phantoms, the reduction in k factor was 12%–40%, 14%–46%, and 44%–59% for obese-class-I, obese-class-II, and obese-class-III phantoms, respectively. The respective reduction in q factor was 11%–36%, 17%–42%, and 48%–59% at 20 years of age and similar at other ages.

Conclusions:

In adult body CT,dose to an organ fully encompassed by the primary radiation beam can be estimated from CTDIvol using a protocol-independent conversion coefficient. However, fully encompassed organs only account for 50% ± 19% of k factor and 46% ± 24% of q factor. Dose received by partially encompassed organs is also substantial. To estimate effective dose and risk index from DLP, it is necessary to use conversion coefficients specific to the anatomical region examined. Obesity has a significant effect on dose and risk conversion coefficients, which cannot be predicted using body diameter alone. SSDE-normalized organdose is not independent of diameter. SSDE itself generally overestimates organdose for obese patients.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/39/11/1.4754584.html;jsessionid=sjob8487ovu3.x-aip-live-02?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/11/10.1118/1.4754584&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address

Oops! This section, does not exist...

Use the links on this page to find existing content.

752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Effects of protocol and obesity on dose conversion factors in adult body CT
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/11/10.1118/1.4754584
10.1118/1.4754584
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM