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.
Organ doses, effective doses, and risk indices in adult CT: Comparison of four types of reference phantoms across different examination protocols
2. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Scientific Committee 6-2 on Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, 2009).
3. ICRP, “Radiation protection in medicine. ICRP Publication 105,” Ann. ICRP 37, 1–63 (2007).
4. A. Berrington de Gonzalez, M. Mahesh, K. P. Kim, M. Bhargavan, R. Lewis, F. Mettler, and C. Land, “Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007,” Arch. Intern Med. 169, 2071–2077 (2009).
5. 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, 272–284 (2007).
6. E. Angel, N. Yaghmai, C. M. Jude, J. J. Demarco, C. H. Cagnon, J. G. Goldin, A. N. Primak, D. M. Stevens, D. D. Cody, C. H. McCollough, and M. F. McNitt-Gray, “Monte Carlo simulations to assess the effects of tube current modulation on breast dose for multidetector CT,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 497–512 (2009).
7. M. Caon, G. Bibbo, and J. Pattison, “An EGS4-ready tomographic computational model of a 14-year-old female torso for calculating organ doses from CT examinations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 2213–2225 (1999).
8. P. Deak, M. van Straten, P. C. Shrimpton, M. Zankl, and W. A. Kalender, “Validation of a Monte Carlo tool for patient-specific dose simulations in multi-slice computed tomography,” Eur. Radiol. 18, 759–772 (2008).
9. 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, 2583–2597 (2007).
10. C. Lee, K. P. Kim, D. Long, R. Fisher, C. Tien, S. L. Simon, A. Bouville, and W. E. Bolch, “Organ doses for reference adult male and female undergoing computed tomography estimated by Monte Carlo simulations,” Med. Phys. 38, 1196–1206 (2011).
11. C. Lee, R. J. Staton, D. E. Hintenlang, M. M. Arreola, J. L. Williams, and W. E. Bolch, “Organ and effective doses in pediatric patients undergoing helical multislice computed tomography examination,” Med. Phys. 34, 1858–1873 (2007).
12. X. Li, E. Samei, W. P. Segars, E. K. Paulson, and D. P. Frush, “The feasibility of universal DLP-to-risk conversion coefficients for body CT protocols,” Proc. SPIE 7961, 79612A (2011).
13. 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, 397–407 (2011).
14. 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, 408–419 (2011).
15. H. Liu, J. Gu, P. F. Caracappa, and X. G. Xu, “Comparison of two types of adult phantoms in terms of organ doses from diagnostic CT procedures,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 1441–1451 (2010).
16. 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, 1816–1825 (2010).
17. I. A. Castellano, D. R. Dance, and P. M. Evans, “CT dosimetry: Getting the best from the adult Cristy phantom,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114, 321–325 (2005).
18. J. Gu, B. Bednarz, P. F. Caracappa, and X. G. Xu, “The development, validation and application of a multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanner model for assessing organ doses to the pregnant patient and the fetus using Monte Carlo simulations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 2699–2717 (2009).
19. A. Khursheed, M. C. Hillier, P. C. Shrimpton, and B. F. Wall, “Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations,” Br. J. Radiol. 75, 819–830 (2002).
20. M. Cristy and K. F. Eckerman, “Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources,” ORNL/TM-8381/VolumesI-VII (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN) (1987).
21. ICRP, “Adult Reference Computational Phantoms. ICRP Publication 110,” Ann. ICRP 39 (2009).
23. X. G. Xu, V. Taranenko, J. Zhang, and C. Shi, “A boundary-representation method for designing whole-body radiation dosimetry models: Pregnant females at the ends of three gestational periods—RPI-P3, -P6 and -P9,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 7023–7044 (2007).
24. W. P. Segars, G. Sturgeon, S. Mendonca, J. Grimes, and B. M. Tsui, “4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research,” Med. Phys. 37, 4902–4915 (2010).
25. R. Kramer, H. J. Khoury, and J. W. Vieira, “Comparison between effective doses for voxel-based and stylized exposure models from photon and electron irradiation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 5105–5126 (2005).
26. C. Lee and W. E. Bolch, “Age-dependent organ and effective dose coefficients for external photons: A comparison of stylized and voxel-based paediatric phantoms,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 4663–4688 (2006).
27. C. Lee, D. Lodwick, J. Hurtado, D. Pafundi, J. L. Williams, and W. E. Bolch, “The UF family of reference hybrid phantoms for computational radiation dosimetry,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 339–363 (2010).
30. ICRP, “Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radilogical protection: The skeleton. ICRP Publication 70,” Ann. ICRP 25 (1995).
31. ICRP, “Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: Reference values. ICRP Publication 89,” Ann. ICRP 32 (2002).
32. ICRU, “Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data for Body Tissues. ICRU Report 46,” ICRU Report 46 (1992).
33. P. C. Shrimpton, B. F. Wall, D. G. Jones, E. S. Fisher, M. C. Hillier, G. M. Kendall, and R. M. Harrison, “Doses to patients from routine diagnostic x-ray examinations in England,” Br. J. Radiol. 59, 749–758 (1986).
34. D. G. Jones and B. F. Wall, “Organ doses from medical x-ray examinations calculated using Monte Carlo techniques,” Report No. NRPB-R186 (Chilton, London, HMSO) (1986).
35. R. Kramer, M. Zankl, G. Williams, and G. Drexler, “The calculation of dose from external photon exposures using reference human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods: Part I,” GSF-Bericht S-885 (1982).
36. 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, 862–874 (2011).
38. J. Baro, J. Sempau, J. M. Fernandezvarea, and F. Salvat, “penelope—An algorithm for Monte-Carlo simulation of the penetration and energy-loss of electrons and positrons in matter,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 100, 31–46 (1995).
39. C. Lee, 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, 5391–5407 (2006).
40. P. C. Shrimpton and D. G. Jones, “Normalized organ doses for x-ray computed-tomography calculated using Monte-Carlo techniques and a mathematical anthropomorphic phantom,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 49, 241–243 (1993).
41. ICRP, “The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103,” Ann. ICRP 37, 1–332 (2007).
42. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (National Academies, Washington, DC, 2006).
46. AAPM, “The Measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT,” AAPM Report No. 96 (2008).
47. 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, 881–889 (2010).
48. P. D. Deak, Y. Smal, and W. A. Kalender, “Multisection CT protocols: Sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product,” Radiology 257, 158–166 (2010).
49. W. Huda, D. Magill, and W. He, “CT effective dose per dose length product using ICRP 103 weighting factors,” Med. Phys. 38, 1261–1265 (2011).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month