Organ doses evaluation for chest computed tomography procedures with TL dosimeters: Comparison with Monte Carlo simulations

被引:40
作者
Giansante, Louise [1 ]
Martins, Juliana C. [1 ,2 ]
Nersissian, Denise Y. [1 ]
Kiers, Karen C. [1 ,3 ]
Kay, Fernando U. [4 ]
Sawamura, Marcia V. Y. [4 ]
Lee, Choonsik [5 ]
Gebrim, Eloisa M. M. S. [4 ]
Costa, Paulo R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sao Paulo IFUSP, Grp Radiat Dosimetry & Med Phys, Inst Phys, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[2] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen LMU, Munich, Germany
[3] Vrije Univ Amsterdam VU, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Univ Sao Paulo InRad, Inst Radiol, Sch Med, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[5] NCI, Div Canc Epidemiol & Genet, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
基金
巴西圣保罗研究基金会;
关键词
computed tomography; dosimetry/exposure assessment; image quality; Monte Carlo simulations; organ dose; TUBE CURRENT MODULATION; CT EXAMINATIONS; CANCER-RISK; REDUCTION; PHANTOM; EXPOSURE; ADULT; VALIDATION; EQUIVALENT; RADIOLOGY;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.12505
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate organ doses in routine and low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) protocols using an experimental methodology. To compare experimental results with results obtained by the National Cancer Institute dosimetry system for CT (NCICT) organ dose calculator. To address the differences on organ dose measurements using tube current modulation (TCM) and fixed tube current protocols. Methods: An experimental approach to evaluate organ doses in pediatric and adult anthropomorphic phantoms using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) was employed in this study. Several analyses were performed in order to establish the best way to achieve the main results in this investigation. The protocols used in this study were selected after an analysis of patient data collected from the Institute of Radiology of the School of Medicine of the University of Sao Paulo (InRad). The image quality was evaluated by a radiologist from this institution. Six chest adult protocols and four chest pediatric protocols were evaluated. Lung doses were evaluated for the adult phantom and lung and thyroid doses were evaluated for the pediatric phantom. The irradiations were performed using both a GE and a Philips CT scanner. Finally, organ doses measured with dosimeters were compared with Monte Carlo simulations performed with NCICT. Results: After analyzing the data collected from all CT examinations performed during a period of 3 yr, the authors identified that adult and pediatric chest CT are among the most applied protocol in patients in that clinical institution, demonstrating the relevance on evaluating organ doses due to these examinations. With regards to the scan parameters adopted, the authors identified that using 80 kV instead of 120 kV for a pediatric chest routine CT, with TCM in both situations, can lead up to a 28.7% decrease on the absorbed dose. Moreover, in comparison to the standard adult protocol, which is performed with fixed mAs, TCM, and ultra low- dose protocols resulted in dose reductions of up to 35.0% and 90.0%, respectively. Finally, the percent differences found between experimental and Monte Carlo simulated organ doses were within a 20% interval. Conclusions: The results obtained in this study measured the impact on the absorbed dose in routine chest CT by changing several scan parameters while the image quality could be potentially preserved.
引用
收藏
页码:308 / 320
页数:13
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]  
AAPM, 2011, SIZ SPEC DOS EST SSD
[2]  
AAPM, 2014, US WAT EQU DIAM CALC
[3]   Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening [J].
Aberle, Denise R. ;
Adams, Amanda M. ;
Berg, Christine D. ;
Black, William C. ;
Clapp, Jonathan D. ;
Fagerstrom, Richard M. ;
Gareen, Ilana F. ;
Gatsonis, Constantine ;
Marcus, Pamela M. ;
Sicks, JoRean D. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2011, 365 (05) :395-409
[4]   Dose Reduction in Pediatric Computed Tomography with Automated Exposure Control [J].
Alibek, Sedat ;
Brand, Martin ;
Suess, Christoph ;
Wuest, Wolfgang ;
Uder, Michael ;
Greess, Holger .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2011, 18 (06) :690-693
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1975, REPORT TASK GROUP RE, pxix
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2000, MANAGING PATIENT DOS
[7]  
ARCHER B R, 1977, Medical Physics (Woodbury), V4, P315, DOI 10.1118/1.594320
[8]  
Attix F H, 2004, INTRO RADIOLOGICAL P
[9]   "How much realism is needed?" - the wrong question in silico imagers have been asking [J].
Badano, Aldo .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (05) :1607-1609
[10]  
Bevington Philip R., 1993, COMPUT PHYS, V7, P415, DOI DOI 10.1063/1.4823194