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.
Organ doses, effective doses, and risk indices in adult CT: Comparison of four types of reference phantoms across different examination protocols
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4718710
    + View Affiliations - Hide Affiliations
    Affiliations:
    1 Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705 and Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705
    2 Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705 and Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705
    3 Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705; Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705; and Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705
    4 Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705; Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705; Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705; and Departments of Physics, Biomedical Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705
    a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: samei@duke.edu
    Med. Phys. 39, 3404 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4718710
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/6/10.1118/1.4718710
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/6/10.1118/1.4718710

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Flow chart of the methodology used in this study. RI: risk index; ED: effective dose.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Lateral and frontal views of the four types of phantoms used in this study. (a) and (b) XCAT reference male and female hybrid phantoms after voxelization. (c) and (d) ICRP 110 reference male and female voxelized phantoms. The organs were relabeled to be consistent with the XCAT phantoms. (e) ImPACT stylized/mathematical hermaphrodite phantom. (f) and (g) CT-Expo male and female stylized/mathematical phantoms.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.
Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Comparison of risk index (RI) over four types of phantoms for the 13 examination categories for male (a) and female (b) phantoms. The coefficient of variation for each examination is displayed above the bars.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Comparison of k factor among four types of phantoms for 13 examination categories. The k factor for XCAT, ICRP 110, and CT-Expo phantoms used gender-averaged effective dose and DLP. The tabulated k values for six protocol classes from the AAPM were also included for comparison in this graph. The coefficient of variation for each examination is displayed above the bars.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Comparison of q factor over four types of phantoms for the 13 examination categories for male (a) and female (b) phantoms. The coefficient of variation for each examination is displayed above the bars.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Organ masses for the four types of reference phantoms employed in this study. Reference organ masses published in ICRP 89 are also listed for comparison. Note that the CT-Expo male and female phantoms were matched to ICRP publication 23.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

CT examination categories investigated in this study.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Scan parameters for body and neurological examination categories.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

COV and average differences of fully irradiated organs for all 13 examination categories. The average COV was obtained by first calculating COV for each organ across four phantoms, and then averaged over all fully irradiated organs. The average difference was calculated using: |D XCAT/D ICRP110 − 1|, |D ImPACT/D ICRP110 − 1|, and |D CT-Expo/D ICRP110 − 1|, and then averaged over all fully irradiated organs. The CT-Expo male phantom does not have any breasts, so breasts were excluded in the calculation for male. The female only organs were bracketed in the organ list. Note that for the adrenals, kidneys, and neck examinations, there were no fully radiosensitive organs.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

COV and average differences of partially irradiated organs for all 13 examination categories.

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

k and q factor over three types of phantoms for the 13 examination categories.

Generic image for table
TABLE VII.

Comparison of k factors obtained using ImPACT and CT-Expo phantoms in this study and from other 3 research groups. All the k factors here were calculated using ICRP 103 tissue weighting factors.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/6/10.1118/1.4718710
2012-05-24
2014-04-17
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Organ doses, effective doses, and risk indices in adult CT: Comparison of four types of reference phantoms across different examination protocols
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/6/10.1118/1.4718710
10.1118/1.4718710
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM