Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research
|
|
- Shanon Edwards
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research Christner et al. Estimating Effective Dose for CT Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research FOCUS ON: Jodie A. Christner 1 James M. Kofler Cynthia H. McCollough Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH Keywords: CT, DLP, dose length product, dual-energy CT, effective dose, effective dose equivalent, ICRP publication 26, ICRP publication 60, ICRP publication 103, organ dose, tissue-weighting factors DOI: /AJR Received August 10, 2009; accepted after revision October 16, All authors: Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First St., SW, Rochester, MN Address correspondence to C. H. McCollough (mccollough.cynthia@mayo.edu). CME This article is available for CME credit. See for more information. AJR 2010; 194: X/10/ American Roentgen Ray Society 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 OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare dose length product (DLP) based estimates of effective dose with organ dose based calculations using tissue-weighting factors from publication 103 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) or dual-energy CT protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using scanner- and energy-dependent organ dose coefficients, we calculated effective doses for CT examinations of the head, chest, coronary arteries, liver, and abdomen and pelvis using routine clinical single- or dual-energy protocols and tissue-weighting factors published in 1991 in ICRP publication 60 and in 2007 in ICRP publication 103. Effective doses were also generated from the respective DLPs using published conversion coefficients that depend only on body region. For each examination type, the same volume CT dose index was used for single- and dual-energy scans. RESULTS. Effective doses calculated for CT examinations using organ dose estimates and ICRP 103 tissue-weighting factors differed relative to ICRP 60 values by 39% ( 0.5 msv, head), 14% (1 msv, chest), 36% (4 msv, coronary artery), 4% (0.6 msv, liver), and 7% ( 1 msv, abdomen and pelvis). DLP-based estimates of effective dose, which were derived using ICRP 60 based conversion coefficients, were less than organ dose based estimates for ICRP 60 by 4% (head), 23% (chest), 37% (coronary artery), 12% (liver), and 19% (abdomen and pelvis) and for ICRP 103 by 34% (head), 37% (chest), 74% (coronary artery), 16% (liver), and 12% (abdomen and pelvis). All results were energy independent. CONCLUSION. These differences in estimates of effective dose suggest the need to reassess DLP to E conversion coefficients when adopting ICRP 103, particularly for scans over the breast. For the evaluated scanner, DLP to E conversion coefficients were energy independent, but ICRP 60 based conversion coefficients underestimated effective dose relative to organ dose based calculations. E ffective dose (E) is a single parameter meant to reflect the relative risk from exposure to ionizing radiation. It reflects the risk of detrimental biologic effects from a nonuniform, partial-body exposure in terms of a whole-body exposure [1, 2]. The risk coefficients used in calculating effective dose were derived from a cohort that included both sexes and all ages and depended primarily on the excess risk observed in survivors of the Japanese atomic bombings. The values are a broad estimate of risk for an average (thin by today s standards) adult hermaphrodite phantom, which is a fairly unrealistic description of the human body (see Fig. 1). Hence, effective dose is not applicable to any single individual. Nonetheless, it is useful for comparing and optimizing imaging procedures that use ionizing radiation, particularly when comparing examinations from different techniques, such as radiography, CT, and nuclear medicine [3 5]. Background Methods for Calculating Effective Dose In this study, two common methods used to estimate effective dose for a CT examination were compared: first, the gold standard method based on organ dose estimates [6, 7] that explicitly uses tissue-weighting coefficients as specified by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [2, 8, 9]; and, second, the computationally more simple method based on the dose length product (DLP) and a DLP to E conversion coefficient, referred to as k, that depends on only the anatomic region examined [10 15]. AJR:194, April
2 Christner et al. Calculation of Organ Doses Monte Carlo simulations The most complete computational method for estimating organ and tissue doses is based on Monte Carlo simulations [6, 7]. The simulations account for many scanner and technique specifics, including scanner geometry, bow-tie filtration, beam collimation, tube potential, and current as well as the CT dose index (CTDI) [5, 16 18] and the scan length for a given CT examination. The Monte Carlo based organ dose coefficient data used for this study were published in 1991 by Jones and Shrimpton [6, 19]. (Similar data are available from the Institute for Radiation Protection [7].) Jones and Shrimpton used a simulated hermaphroditic patient (MIRD-5 phantom) [20 22] having mathematically modeled organs and tissues (Fig. 1). A D The mathematic phantom was divided from head to mid thigh into 208 axial slabs of 5 mm thickness. Then, accounting for tube voltage and using CT scanner specific data for geometry and beam shaping, they simulated a CT scan and calculated absorbed doses to all organs of the body for the irradiation of each axial slab. Summing contributions from all slabs exposed during a particular CT examination yielded the total organ doses. These doses were normalized by the CTDI 100 measured in air at the gantry isocenter, CTDI air [3, 5, 12]. The resultant data tables were published in 1991 in paper [6] and in 1993 in electronic [19] formats by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in the United Kingdom. (Starting in 2005, the NRPB became the Radiation Protection Division of the Health Protection Agency, UK.) B E Fig. 1 Scan ranges for studied examinations as shown on mathematic model used for National Radiological Protection Board Monte Carlo simulations. (Figure of adult hermaphrodite mathematical phantom reproduced with kind permission from Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K; U.K. Health Protection Agency. Report NRPB-R249 (1991): Survey of CT practice in the U.K. Part II. Dosimetric aspects. Chilton, United Kingdom: National Radiological Protection Board) A E, Drawings show scan ranges. Assessment of CT scanners (ImPACT) spreadsheet and scanner match By 2000, many new scanners were in use. The Im- PACT Group (UK National Health Service CT Evaluation Centre, part of the Medical Physics Department at St. George s Hospital, London, UK) developed an Excel (Microsoft) spreadsheet to provide a convenient user interface for determining organ doses using the NRPB Monte Carlo generated data sets. (The spreadsheet is available free of charge at [23]) They further developed a method [24] to map results from the original 23 scanner data sets to new CT scanners through the use of so-called ImPACT factors ; these factors are based on tube voltage dependent CTDI measurements using a standard 100-mm pencil dosimeter in air and either a standard C 882 AJR:194, April 2010
3 Estimating Effective Dose for CT head or standard body CTDI dose phantom [12]. The ImPACT Group s spreadsheet can be used to determine organ doses for a wide range of relevant examination parameters [5, 17, 18]: scanner type, tube voltage, tube current, rotation time, head or body scan, and either scan width and increment for sequential (nonhelical) scans or pitch for helical scans. Calculation of Effective Dose Method 1: using organ dose estimates and ICRP 26, 60, or 103 tissue-weighting factors Tissue-weighting factors are meant to represent the relative radiation sensitivity of each type of body tissue as determined from population averages over age and sex and are derived primarily from the atomic bomb survivors cohort [3 5, 8]. For partial-body irradiation, effective dose is the weighted summation of the absorbed dose to each specified organ and tissue multiplied by the ICRP-defined tissue-weighting factor for that same organ or tissue [8]: E = { w T H T }, Z where T is all ICRP-specified tissues and organs, w T is the ICRP-specified tissue-weighting factor, H T is the dose to a particular organ or tissue, the inside summation is over all T tissues, and the outside summation is over Z all irradiated slabs. Since 1977, three different sets of tissueweighting factors (Table 1 and Fig. 2) have been defined in publications by the ICRP: ICRP 26, published in 1977 [2]; ICRP 60, in 1991 [8]; and ICRP 103, in 2007 [9]. These revisions were intended to reflect advances in knowledge about the radiation sensitivity of various organs and tissues. In ICRP 26, the term effective dose equivalent was used. In ICRP 60, the name of the summed quantity was changed Fig. 2 Bar graph shows tissue-weighting factors specified by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publications 26, 60, and 103. T TABLE 1: Tissue-Weighting Factors for International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publications 26, 60, and 103 Tissue or Organ to effective dose in addition to changes to the tissue-weighting factors. (Throughout this article, we use the term effective dose, or E, to mean effective dose equivalent when referring to calculations based on ICRP 26 tissueweighting factors.) Although ICRP 103 assigns different tissue-weighting factors for several primary organs, it retains the name, effective dose. In addition, the three ICRP recommendations differ somewhat in calculation methodology. For example, in ICRP 26, organ doses are defined by a single-point dose in the organ of interest, whereas in ICRP 60, the mean organ dose is to be used. With each publication, the trend has been to specify weighting factors Publication ICRP 26 ICRP 60 ICRP 103 Gonads Red bone marrow Lung Colon Stomach Breast Bladder Liver Esophagus Thyroid Skin Bone surface Brain 0.01 Salivary glands 0.01 Remainder Total Tissue-Weighting Factors ICRP 26 (1977) ICRP 60 (1991) ICRP 103 (2007) for an increasing number of organs and tissues, which decreased the weighting of remainder tissues. An example is the brain, which was treated as one of the remainder organs in ICRP 26 and ICRP 60. The brain was first listed as a primary organ in ICRP 103. Over time, weighting of specific tissues has also changed. For example, the weighting of the gonads has decreased in each subsequent publication. However, for the breast, weighting was decreased in ICRP 60 but then increased in ICRP 103. As a result of the changes, the estimates of effective dose for the exact same CT examination can differ substantially depending on which ICRP report was used. Gonads Red bone marrow Lung Colon Stomach Breast Bladder Liver Esophagus Thyroid Skin Bone surface Brain Salivary glands Remainder Specific Organs and Tissues AJR:194, April
4 Christner et al. TABLE 2: Published DLP to E k Conversion Coefficients a Method 2: Using DLP and k Coefficients From the European Guidelines DLP is defined as the product of the volume CTDI and the irradicted scan length. DLP = CTDI vol irradiated length, where CTDI vol is the volume CTDI [11, 12]. Comparing effective dose values estimated from DLP for a wide range of scanner models with effective dose values derived from NRPB organ dose calculations and ICRP 60 tissue-weighting coefficients, a linear relationship was found [11] when data sets were restricted to the same anatomic region (e.g., head, neck, chest, and abdomen and pelvis). This led the European Commission to present in 2000 [12] a generic method to quickly estimate effective dose from CT examinations, with updates published in 2004 and 2005 [10, 13, 14]. By this widely used shortcut method, effective dose is calculated as follows: E = k DLP, DLP to E k Conversion Coefficients [msv / (mgy cm)] Jessen et al., [11] (1999) EC [12] (2000) EC Appendix B [10] (2004) where the k coefficient (Table 2) is specific only to the anatomic region scanned. Deviations in estimates of effective dose of ± 15% have been reported using this method relative to the gold standard organ dose based technique for CT scans obtained at 120 kv [25]. In helical CT, this calculation method is apt to underestimate E when DLP is calculated with only the CTDI vol and the prescribed scan range because the irradiated length typically exceeds the prescribed scan length [26, 27]. Because of the widespread use of this method, most manufacturers of CT scanners now compute and display DLP, taking into account the entire irradiated length rather than the lesser prescribed scan length. In spite of these sources of variation in the calculation of effective dose, effective dose is widely used by the academic, clinical, and manufacturing communities. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to determine how well estimates of E calculated using DLP agree with calculations based on organ dose estimates after adopting the revised tissueweighting factors of ICRP 103 or when using tube potential values other than 120 kv, such as for dual-energy CT protocols. Materials and Methods Evaluated CT Examinations Clinical protocols (Table 3) were investigated for head, chest, coronary artery, liver, and abdomen and pelvis CT examinations using typical scan ranges scaled to the NRPB mathematic patient model (Fig. 1). All single-energy (120-kV) protocols had a counterpart in which two tube energies were used, neither being 120 kv. Organ doses and DLP were calculated using our clinical technique parameters, where the CTDI vol of the single-energy examination matched that of the corresponding dual-energy examination. For helical coronary artery examinations, ECG gating is required [28, 29]. Because data are typically not reconstructed at all parts of the cardiac cycle, patient dose can be reduced by decreasing the x-ray tube current during unused parts of the cycle. For this study, we assumed a heart rate of 70 beats per minute and an image reconstruction window that resulted in a 30% reduction in irradiation. Evaluated Scanner The CT protocols investigated were in clinical use on our dual-source CT scanners (SOMATOM TABLE 3: Clinical Scan Parameters for the CT Examinations Studied EC Appendix C [13] (2004) and NRPB-W67 [14] (2005) Scan Type Tube Potential (kv) Tube Current Effective mas a mas / rotation Collimation (mm) Pitch Head SE Rotation Time (s) DE Chest SE DE Coronary arteries SE DE Liver SE DE Abdomen and pelvis SE Note SE = single energy, DE = dual energy. a Effective mas = mas / pitch. Phantom (cm) Head Head and neck Neck Chest Abdomen Pelvis Chest, abdomen, and pelvis Note EC = European Commission, NRPB = National Radiological Protection Board. a E = k DLP, where DLP = dose length product. The phantom size is specified for the volume CT dose index measurements on which DLP is based. DE AJR:194, April 2010
5 Estimating Effective Dose for CT Definition DS, Siemens Healthcare) at the time of the study. The scanner s so-called z-flying focal spot technique [30] was used for collimations described with the prefix 2 ; for example, mm describes a scanner mode that uses the z-flying focal spot technique to collect two interleaved data sets for a detector having a physical size of 32 rows, each 0.6 mm in length. Measured CTDI values used for scanner matching, through the use of ImPACT factors, were an average over all available quality control data for three identical scanners at our institution. Data were collected over more than 2 years and included, on average, 14 measurements for each set of scan parameters. Specifically, quality control data for CTDI air, CTDI center, and CTDI edge were used for mm collimation at all energies studied (80, 100, 120, and 140 kv) and for collimations of and mm at 120 kv. The remaining requisite dose data for collimations of and mm at 80, 100, and 140 kv were measured using our standard technique [17, 31] on one scanner. Effective Dose E 26 Fig. 3 Comparison of effective dose (E) estimates by anatomic region according to recommendations of International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publications 26, 60, or 103 or calculated using dose length product (DLP) and k coefficients. SE = single energy, DE = dual energy. A E, Bar graphs show data for head (A), chest (B), coronary CT angiogram (C), liver (D), and abdomen and pelvis (E) examinations. A Effective Dose Calculation Based on Organ Doses The ImPACT Group s Excel spreadsheet (version 0.99x [23]) was used to calculate organ doses based on the NRPB Monte Carlo data sets [19]. Because data for the studied scanner were not reported by the ImPACT Group, we performed the needed scanner matching according to their method [24] using measurements from our scanners. Data entered into the dose calculator spreadsheet for each examination (Table 4) included clinical CT scan parameters and CTDI air. Additionally, the weighted CTDI 100 defined as n CTDI w = 1/3 CT- DI center + 2/3 CTDI edge [12, 32] and normalized to 100 mas and tube current time product, which is the tube current (in milliamperes) the gantry rotation time (in seconds), were entered to allow the spreadsheet to calculate the CTDI vol for the described examination. Comparison of the spreadsheet-calculated CTDI vol with the scanner-reported CTDI vol served as a verification of correct data entry. After the organ dose calculations, a modified version of the ImPACT Group s spreadsheet was used, along with the tissue-weighting coefficients and calculation methodology specified in ICRP publications 26, 60, or 103 to yield an estimate of effective dose (or effective dose equivalent): E 26, or, respectively. For a dual-energy examination, effective dose was the sum of E values for the lowand high-kv scans. Because use of the dose calculator method results in identical organ doses for any given protocol (e.g., kv, scan region, mas), any differences in the calculated values of effective dose for E 26, and resulted from the use of the different sets of tissue-weighting factors and calculation rules from the three ICRP publications. TABLE 4: Input Parameters for the ImPACT Dose Calculator [23] Spreadsheet Tube Potential (kv) Monte Carlo Set No. a Scan Start b (cm) Scan End b (cm) Scan Length b (cm) CTDI air (mgy) n CTDI w c (mgy) Head Chest Coronary arteries Liver Abdomen and pelvis a Resulting from scanner matching, as described in the text. b Scan start, scan end, and scan length refer to the mathematic phantom used for National Radiological Protection Board Monte Carlo calculations as shown in Figure 1. c n CTDI w is the weighted CTDI 100, normalized to 100 mas, as defined in the text. Effective Dose Effective Dose E 26 E 26 B D Effective Dose Effective Dose E 26 E 26 C E AJR:194, April
6 TABLE 5: Organ Dose Based Effective Dose (E) Estimates Christner and et Comparisons al. for International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publications 26, 60, and 103 Scan Type Effective Dose Calculated From DLP DLP for each CT examination was also calculated using the ImPACT spreadsheet. From this result, we determined an estimate for as the product of DLP and the body region appropriate DLP to E conversion coefficient, k (Table 2). The values used for k were the most recently reported values, published in 2004 [13]. They were based on ICRP 60 and are msv/mgy cm (head), msv/ mgy cm (chest), and msv/mgy cm (abdomen and pelvis). The estimate of effective dose for a dual-energy examination was the sum of E values for the two energies. Energy Dependence of Effective Dose To assess the influence of CT tube potential (80, 100, 120, or 140 kv) on estimations of effective dose, the values for, and at each tube potential were normalized to CTDI vol to obtain, and / CT- DI vol, respectively. For each examination type, we computed the coefficient of variation as a function of energy for the normalized effective dose values ( or ), where [coefficient of variation = SD / mean]. These coefficients of variation were used to quantitate any energy dependence of the organ dose calculations. Tube Potential (kv) E 26 Range of E a Range of E a / Comparative Assessments Changes from E 26 to were normalized to E 26 and changes from to were normalized to to show the step-wise changes in risk estimates due to changes in the definition of effective dose. Having no knowledge of the true value of E, because it is a nonphysical mathematic construct that cannot be measured, all other normalizations were performed relative to, because ICRP 60 s definitions were used to determine the current k coefficients. Results Comparison of Effective Dose Based on Organ Doses Between ICRP 26, 60, or 103 The relative values of effective dose calculated using ICRP 26, 60, or 103 tissue-weighting factors and organ dose estimates based on Monte Carlo simulations depended on the body region examined (Table 5 and Fig. 3). The range that is, the absolute value (maximum minimum) of the three E values (E 26, and ) was ~ 2 msv (head), 2 msv (chest), 6 7 msv (coronary arteries), 3 msv (liver), and 1 msv (abdomen and pelvis) corresponding, respectively, to 155% (head), 29% (chest), 53% (coronary arteries), 25% (liver), and 7% (abdomen and pelvis) of the values. E 26 ( E 26 ) / E 26 ( ) / Head SE DE DE total Chest SE DE DE total Coronary arteries SE DE DE total Liver SE DE DE total Abdomen and pelvis SE DE Note SE = single energy, DE = dual energy. a Range of E = maximum E minus minimum E for the set E 26, DE total For four of the five investigated examinations, E 26 was the largest. The exception was the abdomen and pelvis examination, where there was a relatively small (7%) difference between effective dose estimates. was the smallest of the three estimates of effective dose in three of the five investigated examinations. In changing from ICRP 60 to ICRP 103 tissue-weighting factors, effective dose estimates were least affected for liver (0.6 msv, 4% increase) and abdomen and pelvis ( 1 msv, 7% decrease) examinations. For CT of the head, effective dose decreased by 0.5 msv, or 39%, because the weighting of the brain was reduced in ICRP 103 to 0.01, compared with that for ICRP 60, where half of the remainder weighting factor (0.025) was applied. The largest changes were an increase of 14% for chest (1-mSv increase) and 36% for coronary artery (4-mSv increase) examinations due to the increase in the breast tissue-weighting factors from 0.05 to Comparison of Effective Dose Based on Organ Doses or DLP Results were compared for effective dose calculated from organ dose estimates and tissueweighting factors versus DLP and k coefficients 886 AJR:194, April 2010
7 Estimating Effective Dose for CT (Table 6). underestimated E for all investigated examinations relative to the organ-based calculation of. The percentage differences [100% ( ) / ] for the 120-kV single-energy examination were 4% (head), 23% (chest), 37% (coronary arteries), 12% (liver), and 19% (abdomen and pelvis). Likewise, underestimated E compared with the organ-based calculations of except for the head examination, where it was nearly equivalent (absolute increase of 0.5 msv, relative increase of 34%). The largest differences ( ) were found for the chest ( 2.6 msv, 37%) and coronary artery ( 8.6 msv, 74%) examinations. The per DLP ratio that is, k values for ICRP 103 were computed for each examination (Table 6, see Discussion). Comparison of Effective Dose for Single- or Dual-Energy Protocols Organ dose based estimates of effective dose for single-energy and dual-energy examinations were virtually the same with an observed difference of no more than 0.8 msv, or 8% (Table 5), thus confirming that the experimental design goal was achieved. For dual-energy examinations, effective dose of the high-energy and low-energy components of the examination were split almost equally for head and chest regions, differed by about 20% for coronary artery and abdomen and pelvis regions, and differed nearly 50% for the liver examination. Energy Dependance of Effective Dose The k values for ICRP 103 (Table 6, see Discussion) computed for each examination were energy independent. Normalized values for per CTDI vol (Table 7) were msv/mgy (head), 0.39 msv/mgy (chest), 0.18 msv/mgy (coronary arteries), 0.40 msv/mgy (liver), and 0.68 msv/mgy (abdomen and pelvis). These values must be energy independent because each of the input parameters used to compute (CTDI vol, DLP, and the DLP to E (k) conversion coefficients) were fixed, independent of energy (tube potential). For each examination type, the coefficients of variation for and values, which were based on energy-dependent organ-dose calculations, were within 1% of each other and were approximately 3 4% (head), 5 6% (chest), 1 3% (coronary arteries), 7 8% (liver), and 10% (abdomen and pelvis). Thus, for the same total CTDI vol, TABLE 6: Dose Length Product (DLP) Based Effective Dose (E) Estimates and Comparisons for International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publications 26, 60, and 103 Tube Potential (kv) CDTI vol (mgy) DLP (mgy cm) k value a / (mgy cm) = k DLP ( ) / ( ) / ( ) / = / DLP / (mgy cm) Head DE total DE SE Chest DE total DE SE Coronary arteries DE total DE SE Liver DE total DE SE Abdomen and pelvis DE total DE SE Note SE = single energy, DE = dual energy. a Based on ICRP 60 [8] as reported by Shrimpton [13, 14]. AJR:194, April
8 Christner et al. TABLE 7: Energy Dependence of, and Normalized to CTDI vol Coefficient of Variation b Tube Potential (kv) CDTI vol (mgy) the tube potential has a minimal effect on estimates of effective dose. (msv / mgy) (msv / mgy) Discussion The results of this study reinforce the fact that effective dose is a derived parameter. It is always computed through multiple steps and approximations. Depending on which set of tissue-weighting coefficients are used, E values may vary substantially. Effective dose is meant as an estimate of relative biologic risk [9] and is not a physical parameter that can be measured., although based on ICRP 60, underestimates (based on organ doses) for the studied scanner. This finding is not surprising because k is based on data averaged over many scanner makes and models and is therefore not specific to this scanner. However, generating many specialized k values is not consistent with the definition of effective dose and its intended use. Adopting ICRP 103 but retaining the current k coefficients would further increase the underestimations of for chest, coronary artery, and abdomen examinations compared with E values derived from organ doses. Hence, to use the DLP-based method of estimating E for ICRP 103 weighting factors requires a comprehensive analysis of a broad variety of scanners to estimate the mean values for DLP to E conversion coefficients. To account for the increased sensitivity assigned to breast tissue by ICRP 103 over ICRP 60, it may be useful to introduce distinct coefficients for cardiac examinations. Martin [4] has reported the inherent relative uncertainties in estimating effective dose (using organ doses) to a reference patient to be about ± 40%. He further reminds readers that because E has been defined by the ICRP [9] as a single parameter to reflect overall risk averaged over all ages and both sexes for a reference patient, neither the Monte Carlo based organ dose coefficients nor the DLP-based k values [13] should be used to calculate E estimates for individual patients [33]. In general, the accuracy of E values derived from Monte Carlo calculations cannot be substantially improved by measuring organ doses using an anthropomorphic phantom and radiation measurement devices because experimental uncertainties will exist, including variations in the physical anthropomorphic phantom used. Further, Monte Carlo methods to estimate absorbed dose have been shown to be extremely accurate (e.g., they are used in radiation therapy treatment planning). Martin s [4] analysis of ± 40% uncertainties in E estimates applies in either case, with Monte Carlo methods being more standardized and reproducible. The results (msv / mgy) Head Chest Coronary arteries Liver Abdomen and pelvis a k based on ICRP 60 [8]. b Coefficient of variation = 100% (SD) / mean. The coefficient of variation for a given examination indicates any energy dependence. of this study show that estimating effective dose from DLP works about equally well for dual-energy CT as it does for single-energy CT. A limitation of this work is that only one scanner was studied. Additionally, a circa-1990 scanner with similar dose characteristics was used as a surrogate for the studied scanner. However, until Monte Carlo organ dose coefficient values for newer scanners are available, scanner matching to an older scanner model is the only available option. Finally, use of the simplified and relatively small anthropomorphic model makes these estimates of effective dose applicable to scans of a small adult. With today s continued increase in the number of overweight and obese patients, the calculated values of E should be used with caution. They apply to the CT examination generally and cannot be used for any one individual, particularly persons who have a marked difference in body habitus compared with the MIRD phantom. In conclusion, the use of ICRP 103 tissueweighting factors in place of ICRP 60 factors decreased organ dose based estimates of effective dose for CT examinations of the abdomen and pelvis by 7% and head by 39%, but increased estimates of effective dose for scans of the liver by 4%, chest by 14%, and coronary arteries by 36%. The absolute value of 888 AJR:194, April 2010
9 Estimating Effective Dose for CT the largest change was 4 msv for the coronary artery examination. These changes primarily reflect the increased tissue-weighting factor for breast tissue together with decreased factors for the gonads and brain. For the evaluated CT scanner and examinations,, although based on ICRP 60, underestimated E relative to E60 by 4 37% and relative to E103 by up to 74%. These results were essentially independent of tube potential, suggesting that estimates of E based on DLP work equally well for single-energy and dual-energy CT examinations. References 1. Jacobi W. The concept of effective dose: a proposal for the combination of organ doses. Radiat Environ Biophys 1975; 12: International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1977:ICRP publication no McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of effective dose. Med Phys 2000; 27: Martin CJ. Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 2007; 80: American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT: report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. College Park, MD: AAPM, 2007: report no Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 3. Normalised organ doses calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 1991:report no. NRPB-R Zankl M, Panzer W, Drexler G. The calculation of dose from external photon exposures using reference human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods. Part VI. Organ doses from computed tomographic examinations. Neuherberg, Germany: GSF - Forschungszentrum fur Umwelt und Gesundtheit, Institut fur Strahlenschutz, International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Ann ICRP 1991; 21:publication no International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2007; 37:publication no Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European guidelines for multislice computed tomography. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2004:FIGM-CT CT-TIP 11. Jessen KA, Shrimpton PC, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G. Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50: Jessen KA, Panzer W, Shrimpton PC, et al. European Guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2000:EUR Shrimpton P. Assessment of patient dose in CT. In: EUR. European guidelines for multislice computed tomography funded by the European Commission 2004: contract number FIGMCT CT- TIP. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: European Commission, 2004:Appendix C 14. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK: 2003 review. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 2005:report NRPB-W Shrimpton P. Reference doses for computed tomography. Radiological Protection Bulletin 1997; 193: Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 1981; 8: McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT radiation dose in CT. RadioGraphics 2002; 22: McCollough C. CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce. Health Phys 2008; 95: Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Normalised organ doses for x-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 1993:report NRPB-SR Cristy M. Mathematical phantoms representing children of various ages for use in estimates of internal dose. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1980 This article is available for CME credit. See for more information. 21. Jones DG, Wall BF. Organ doses from medical x- ray examinations calculated using Monte Carlo Techniques. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 1985:report NRPB-R Snyder WS, Fisher HL Jr, Ford MR, Warner GG. Estimates of absorbed fractions for monoenergetic photon sources uniformly distributed in various organs of a heterogeneous phantom. J Nucl Med 1969; [suppl 3]: ImPACT Group Website. Accessed January 20, Lewis M, Edyvean S, Sassi S, Kiremidjian H, Keat N, Britten A. Estimating patient dose on current CT scanners: results of the ImPACT CT dose survey. RAD Magazine 2000; 26: McCollough CH. Patient dose in cardiac computed tomography. Herz 2003; 28: Crawford CR, King KF. Computed tomography scanning with simultaneous patient translation. Med Phys 1990; 17: Nicholson R, Fetherston S. Primary radiation outside the imaged volume of a multislice helical CT scan. Br J Radiol 2002; 75: Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. RadioGraphics 2006; 26: Flohr T, Stierstorfer K, Raupach R, Ulzheimer S, Bruder H. Performance evaluation of a 64-slice CT system with z-flying focal spot. Rofo 2004; 176: International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment. Part Particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography, ed. 2.1 Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Central Office, 2002:IEC publication no Leitz W, Axelsson B, Szendro G. Computed tomography dose assessment: a practical approach. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995; 57: Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Effective dose and dose length product in CT. Radiology 2009; 250: FOR YOUR INFORMATION The reader s attention is directed to the related article, titled How Effective Is Effective Dose as a Predictor of Radiation Risk?, which begins on page 890. AJR:194, April
A more accurate method to estimate patient dose during body CT examinations with tube current modulation
A more accurate method to estimate patient dose during body CT examinations with tube current modulation Poster No.: C-0738 Congress: ECR 2014 Type: Scientific Exhibit Authors: A. Kawaguchi 1, Y. Matsunaga
More informationMeasurement of organ dose in abdomen-pelvis CT exam as a function of ma, KV and scanner type by Monte Carlo method
Iran. J. Radiat. Res., 2004; 1(4): 187-194 Measurement of organ dose in abdomen-pelvis CT exam as a function of ma, KV and scanner type by Monte Carlo method M.R. Ay 1, M. Shahriari 2, S. Sarkar 3, P.
More informationCT Dose Estimation. John M. Boone, Ph.D., FAAPM, FSBI, FACR Professor and Vice Chair of Radiology. University of California Davis Medical Center
CT Dose Estimation John M. Boone, Ph.D., FAAPM, FSBI, FACR Professor and Vice Chair of Radiology 1 University of California Davis Medical Center CT Dose Estimation Introduction The CTDI Family of Metrics
More informationConventional and spiral CT dose indices in Yazd general hospitals, Iran
Iran. J. Radiat. Res., 2006; 3 (4): 183-189 Conventional and spiral CT dose indices in Yazd general hospitals, Iran F. Bouzarjomehri 1*,M.H.Zare 2, D. Shahbazi 2 1 Department of Medical Physics, Shahid
More informationAn Assessment of Organ and Effective Dose of Patients who Undertake CT Examinations in two Teaching Hospitals of Mashhad&Isfahan
An Assessment of Organ and Effective Dose of Patients who Undertake CT Examinations in two Teaching Hospitals of Mashhad&Isfahan *M.T.Bahreyni Toossi, **S.Mohandes Dastgherdi Medical Physics Dep., Faculty
More informationDoses from pediatric CT examinations in Norway Are pediatric scan protocols developed and in daily use?
Doses from pediatric CT examinations in Norway Are pediatric scan protocols developed and in daily use? Eva Godske Friberg * Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, P.O. Box, Østerås, Norway Abstract.
More informationAssessment of effective dose in paediatric CT examinations
Assessment of effective dose in paediatric CT examinations E. Dougeni 1,2 CL. Chapple 1, J. Willis 1, G. Panayiotakis 2 1 Regional Medical Physics Department, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle
More informationCURRENT CT DOSE METRICS: MAKING CTDI SIZE-SPECIFIC
CURRENT CT DOSE METRICS: MAKING CTDI SIZE-SPECIFIC Keith Strauss, MSc, FAAPM, FACR Cincinnati Children s Hospital University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Acknowledgments John Boone, PhD Michael McNitt-Grey,
More informationESTABLISHING DRLs in PEDIATRIC CT. Keith Strauss, MSc, FAAPM, FACR Cincinnati Children s Hospital University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
ESTABLISHING DRLs in PEDIATRIC CT Keith Strauss, MSc, FAAPM, FACR Cincinnati Children s Hospital University of Cincinnati College of Medicine CT Dose Indices CTDI INTRODUCTION CTDI 100, CTDI w, CTDI vol
More informationState of the art and future development for standardized estimation of organ doses in CT
State of the art and future development for standardized estimation of organ doses in CT March 2015 William J. O Connel, Dr. Ph, Senior Medical Physicist Imagination at work. Agenda Introduction Duke Florida
More informationAccounting for Imaging Dose
Accounting for Imaging Dose High Profile Over-exposures Lead to Growing Concern FDA issues warning in October 2009-209 patients exposed to 8 times typical dose for CT brain perfusion scan (3-4 Gy) - Some
More informationCalculation of Normalised Organ and Effective Doses to Adult Reference Computational Phantoms from Contemporary Computed Tomography Scanners
Progress in NUCLEAR SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 2, pp.165-171 (2011) ARTICLE Calculation of Normalised Organ and Effective Doses to Adult Reference Computational Phantoms from Contemporary Computed Tomography
More informationCalculation of Effective Doses for Radiotherapy Cone-Beam CT and Nuclear Medicine Hawkeye CT Laura Sawyer
Calculation of Effective Doses for Radiotherapy Cone-Beam CT and Nuclear Medicine Hawkeye CT Laura Sawyer Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Royal United Hospital, Bath Overview Varian Acuity
More informationQuality Control and Patient Dosimetry on line for Computed Tomography
Quality Control and Patient Dosimetry on line for Computed Tomography Jose I. Ten 1,2, Eliseo Vano 2,3, Jose M. Fernandez-Soto 2,3, Roberto Sanchez 3, Juan Arrazola 1,2 1 Diagnostic Radiology Service and
More informationEstimated Radiation Dose Associated With Low-Dose Chest CT of Average-Size Participants in the National Lung Screening Trial
Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research Larke et al. Estimated Radiation Dose for Low-Dose Chest CT Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research Frederick J. Larke 1 Randell L. Kruger 2
More informationSkyscan 1076 in vivo scanning: X-ray dosimetry
Skyscan 1076 in vivo scanning: X-ray dosimetry DOSIMETRY OF HIGH RESOLUTION IN VIVO RODENT MICRO-CT IMAGING WITH THE SKYSCAN 1076 An important distinction is drawn between local tissue absorbed dose in
More informationManaging Patient Dose in Computed Tomography (CT) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION
Managing Patient Dose in Computed Tomography (CT) International Commission on Radiological Protection Information abstracted from ICRP Publication 87 Available at www.icrp.org Task Group: M.M. Rehani,
More informationTracking Doses in the Pediatric Population
Tracking Doses in the Pediatric Population Frederic H. Fahey DSc Boston Children s Hospital Harvard Medical School frederic.fahey@childrens.harvard.edu Disclosures Sadly, none that pay me any money! SNMMI
More informationEstimating Patient Radiation Dose from Computed Tomography
Estimating Patient Radiation Dose from Computed Tomography C. Cagnon, J. DeMarco, E. Angel, M. McNitt-Gray UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine 1 Patient Dose from CT Advances in Technology... Helical
More informationDosimetric Consideration in Diagnostic Radiology
Dosimetric Consideration in Diagnostic Radiology Prof. Ng Kwan-Hoong Department of Biomedical Imaging University of Malaya ngkh@um.edu.my Radiation Dosimetry Workshop, 28-29 March 2014 2 Why do we measure
More informationA Real-Time Monte Carlo System for Internal Dose Evaluation Using an Anthropomorphic Phantom with Different Shapes of Tumors Inserted
A Real-Time Monte Carlo System for Internal Dose Evaluation Using an Anthropomorphic Phantom with Different Shapes of Tumors Inserted J. Wu, S. J. Chang, B. J. Chang, I. J. Chen, J. H. Chiu Health Physics
More informationCumulative radiation CT dose in young traumatic patients: a single centre 5 years retrospective review
Cumulative radiation CT dose in young traumatic patients: a single centre 5 years retrospective review Poster No.: C-1604 Congress: ECR 2014 Type: Scientific Exhibit Authors: S. Salerno, C. Geraci, E.
More informationCT Radiation Dosimetry Study Using Monte Carlo Simulation and. Computational Anthropomorphic Phantoms
CT Radiation Dosimetry Study Using Monte Carlo Simulation and Computational Anthropomorphic Phantoms by Yakun Zhang Graduate Program in Medical Physics Duke University Date: Approved: Ehsan Samei, Supervisor
More informationSurvey of patients CT radiation dose in Jiangsu Province
Original Article Page 1 of 6 Survey of patients CT radiation dose in Jiangsu Province Yuanyuan Zhou 1, Chunyong Yang 1, Xingjiang Cao 1, Xiang Du 1, Ningle Yu 1, Xianfeng Zhou 2, Baoli Zhu 1, Jin Wang
More informationNational Cancer Institute
National Cancer Institute A Dosimetry Summary of CT Participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health AAPM 2015 Anaheim,
More informationRe: PSM of the National Voluntary Consensus Standard for Patient Safety Measures, 2 nd Report
Re: PSM-044-10 of the National Voluntary Consensus Standard for Patient Safety Measures, 2 nd Report Dear members of the National Quality Forum Board: As Professors of Radiologic Physics (at Mayo Clinic
More informationFDG-18 PET/CT - radiation dose and dose-reduction strategy
FDG-18 PET/CT - radiation dose and dose-reduction strategy Poster No.: C-1856 Congress: ECR 2014 Type: Authors: Keywords: DOI: Scientific Exhibit P. Nicholson, S. McSweeney, K. O'Regan; Cork/IE Radiation
More informationIntroduction and Background
CT Lung Cancer Screening and the Medical Physicist: Background, Findings and Participant Dosimetry Summary of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) Randell Kruger, PhD, DABR Medical Physics Section
More informationCT Radiation Risks and Dose Reduction
CT Radiation Risks and Dose Reduction Walter L. Robinson, M.S. D.A.B.S.N.M., D.A.B.M.P., D.A.B.R. Consultant Certified Medical Radiation Health & Diagnostic Imaging Physicist Medical Radiation and Children
More informationComputed tomography Acceptance testing and dose measurements
Computed tomography Acceptance testing and dose measurements Jonas Andersson Medical Physicist, Ph.D. Department of Radiation Sciences University Hospital of Norrland, Umeå Sweden Contents The Computed
More informationRadiation Dose Reduction Strategies in Coronary CT Angiography
Radiation Dose Reduction Strategies in Coronary CT Angiography Noor Diyana Osman, PhD noordiyana@usm.my Contents: Introduction Radiation dosimetry in CT Radiation risk associated with coronary CT angiography
More informationManaging Patient Dose in Computed Tomography (CT)
Managing Patient Dose in Computed Tomography (CT) International Commission on Radiological Protection Information abstracted from ICRP Publication 87 Available at www.icrp.org Task Group: M.M. Rehani,
More informationThoracic examinations with 16, 64, 128 and 256 slices CT: comparison of exposure doses measured with an anthropomorphic phantom and TLD dosimeters
Thoracic examinations with 16, 64, 128 and 256 slices CT: comparison of exposure doses measured with an anthropomorphic phantom and TLD dosimeters Poster No.: C-2584 Congress: ECR 2015 Type: Scientific
More informationRecent Progress in Radiation Dosimetry for Epidemiology and Radiological Protection. John Harrison ICRP Committee 2
Recent Progress in Radiation Dosimetry for Epidemiology and Radiological Protection John Harrison ICRP Committee 2 Joint ICRP-RERF-JHPS Workshop: Tokyo, December 2017 Task Group 79 : Use of Effective Dose
More informationManaging the imaging dose during Image-guided Radiotherapy. Martin J Murphy PhD Department of Radiation Oncology Virginia Commonwealth University
Managing the imaging dose during Image-guided Radiotherapy Martin J Murphy PhD Department of Radiation Oncology Virginia Commonwealth University Radiographic image guidance has emerged as the new paradigm
More informationA Standardised Approach to Optimisation
The Radiographer vol. 51: 105-110 A Standardised Approach to Optimisation Helen M. Warren-Forward 1 & Ronald Beckhaus 2 ABSTRACT Purpose: Optimisation of radiographic images is said to have been obtained
More informationManaging Radiation Risk in Pediatric CT Imaging
Managing Radiation Risk in Pediatric CT Imaging Mahadevappa Mahesh, MS, PhD, FAAPM, FACR, FACMP, FSCCT. Professor of Radiology and Cardiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Chief Physicist
More informationImpact of ICRP-89 Based Models on Dose Estimates for Radiopharmaceuticals and CT Exams. Stabin MG, Kost SD, Clark JH, Pickens DR, Price RR, Carver DE
Impact of ICRP-89 Based Models on Dose Estimates for Radiopharmaceuticals and CT Exams Stabin MG, Kost SD, Clark JH, Pickens DR, Price RR, Carver DE Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA Abstract New
More informationSOMATOM Drive System Owner Manual Dosimetry and imaging performance report
www.siemens.com/healthcare SOMATOM Drive System Owner Manual Dosimetry and imaging performance report Table of contents 1 Dosimetry and imaging performance report 5 1.1 Dose information 5 1.1.1 General
More informationToshiba Aquillion 64 CT Scanner. Phantom Center Periphery Center Periphery Center Periphery
Comparison of radiation dose and imaging performance for the standard Varian x-ray tube and the Richardson Healthcare ALTA750 replacement tube for the Toshiba Aquillion CT scanners. by Robert L. Dixon,
More informationRadiation exposure of the Yazd population from medical conventional X-ray examinations
Iran. J. Radiat. Res., 2007; 4 (4): 195-200 Radiation exposure of the Yazd population from medical conventional X-ray examinations F. Bouzarjomehri 1*, M.H. Dashti 2, M.H. Zare 1 1 Department of Medical
More information8/18/2011. Acknowledgements. Managing Pediatric CT Patient Doses INTRODUCTION
Managing Pediatric CT Patient Doses Keith J. Strauss, MSc, FAAPM, FACR President X-Ray Computations, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Acknowledgements Marilyn Goske, MD John Boone, PhD Cynthia McCollough, PhD
More informationAAPM Task Group 180 Image Guidance Doses Delivered During Radiotherapy: Quantification, Management, and Reduction
AAPM Task Group 180 Image Guidance Doses Delivered During Radiotherapy: Quantification, Management, and Reduction Parham Alaei, Ph.D. Department of Radiation Oncology University of Minnesota NCCAAPM Fall
More informationEstimation of Organ and Effective Doses for Neonate and Infant Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterizations
Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research Kawasaki et al. Dose Estimates for Neonate and Infant Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research Toshio Kawasaki
More informationAssessment of Patient Dose from CT Examinations in Khorasan, Iran
Iranian Journal of Medical Physics Vol. 9, No. 4, Autumn 2012, 233-238 Received: July 18, 2012; Accepted: November 17, 2012 Original Article Assessment of Patient Dose from CT Examinations in Khorasan,
More informationEstimated cumulative radiation dose from PET/CT in children with malignancies: a 5-year retrospective review
Pediatr Radiol (1) :681 686 DOI 1.17/s247-9-1434-z ORIGINAL ARTICLE Estimated cumulative radiation dose from PET/CT in children with malignancies: a 5-year retrospective review Soni C. Chawla & Noah Federman
More information3 rd International Symposium on the System of Radiological Protection Seoul, October John Harrison
3 rd International Symposium on the System of Radiological Protection Seoul, October 2015 John Harrison UK Task Group 79 : Use of Effective Dose as a Risk-related Radiological Protection Quantity John
More informationCone Beam CT Protocol Optimisation for Prostate Imaging with the Varian Radiotherapy OBI imaging system. Dr Craig Moore & Dr Tim Wood
Cone Beam CT Protocol Optimisation for Prostate Imaging with the Varian Radiotherapy OBI imaging system Dr Craig Moore & Dr Tim Wood Background With the increasing use of CBCT imaging alongside complex
More informationEquivalent dose to organs and tissues in Hysterosalpingography calculated with the FAX (Female Adult voxel) phantom
Equivalent dose to organs and tissues in Hysterosalpingography calculated with the FAX (Female Adult voxel) phantom 1 R Kramer, PhD, 1 H J Khoury, PhD, 1 C. Lopes and 2 J W Vieira, PhD 1 Departamento de
More informationDoses from Cervical Spine Computed Tomography (CT) examinations in the UK. John Holroyd and Sue Edyvean
Doses from Cervical Spine Computed Tomography (CT) examinations in the UK John Holroyd and Sue Edyvean Why a new dose survey? Number of enquires received concerning the current NDRL Concern that could
More informationICRP Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection
ICRP Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection October 24-26, 2011 Bethesda, MD, USA M. Balonov, ICRP Committee 2, IRH, Russia P. Shrimpton, HPA, UK To be used just for regulatory
More informationDose to Radiosensitive Organs During Routine Chest CT: Effects of Tube Current Modulation
Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research Angel et al. Radiation Dose During Chest CT Medical Physics and Informatics Original Research Erin Angel 1,2 Nazanin Yaghmai 1 Cecilia Matilda Jude 1 John
More informationRadiation Dose To Pediatric Patients in Computed Tomography in Sudan
Radiation Dose To Pediatric Patients in Computed Tomography in Sudan Omer Osman,Saeed Medical Physics Department, ALNeelain University, Sudan Presentation outlines Introduction Objectives Materials and
More informationMeasurements of Air Kerma Index in Computed Tomography: A comparison among methodologies
Measurements of Air Kerma Index in Computed Tomography: A comparison among methodologies Thêssa C. Alonso 1, 2, Arnaldo P. Mourão 1, 3, Teógenes A. Da Silva 1, 2 1 Program of Nuclear Science and Techniques
More informationRadiation related cancer risk & benefit/risk assessment for screening procedures
WHO Workshop on Justification of CT for IHA 15-17 Oct 2014 Radiation related cancer risk & benefit/risk assessment for screening procedures Elke A. Nekolla BfS Federal Office for Radiation Protection Radiation
More informationProf. Dr. Doğan BOR Ankara University Institute of Nuclear Science
PATIENT DOSIMETRY IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY MODALITIES Prof. Dr. Doğan BOR Ankara University Institute of Nuclear Science Ankara University Institute of Nuclear Science USE OF RADIATION! INCREASING? Natural
More informationEstimating Testicular Cancer specific Mortality by Using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Registry
Appendix E1 Estimating Testicular Cancer specific Mortality by Using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Registry To estimate cancer-specific mortality for 33-year-old men with stage I testicular
More informationAutomatic Patient Centering for MDCT: Effect on Radiation Dose
Patient Centering for MDCT CT Imaging Original Research Jianhai Li 1 Unni K. Udayasankar 1 Thomas L. Toth 2 John Seamans 2 William C. Small 1 Mannudeep K. Kalra 1,3 Li J, Udayasankar UK, Toth TL, Seamans
More informationOrgan Dose Variability with Gender, Age and BMI
Organ Dose Variability with Gender, Age and BMI Dr Ted Lazo CRPPH Scientific Secretariat Article 31 Meeting, 17 May 2017, Luxembourg Background The ICRP system uses a generalised, gender and age averaged
More informationA comparison of radiation doses from modern multi-slice Computed Tomography angiography and conventional diagnostic Angiography:
A comparison of radiation doses from modern multi-slice Computed Tomography angiography and conventional diagnostic Angiography: Rob Loader Oliver Gosling Introduction Approached by Dr Oliver Gosling (Research
More informationPatient effective dose evaluation for chest X-ray examination in three digital radiography centers
Patient effective dose evaluation for chest X-ray examination in three digital radiography centers R. Paydar 1,3*, A. Takavar 1, M.R. Kardan 2,3, A. Babakhani 3,4, M.R. Deevband 3, S. Saber 5 1Medical
More informationRadiation Doses in Radiology: Influence of Standards and Regulations
Radiation Doses in Radiology: Influence of Standards and Regulations Beebe Symposium National Academy of Sciences December 9, 2009 Washington D.C. Orhan H Suleiman MS PhD, FAAPM Senior Science Policy Adviser
More informationA Snapshot on Nuclear Cardiac Imaging
Editorial A Snapshot on Nuclear Cardiac Imaging Khalil, M. Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Helwan University. There is no doubt that nuclear medicine scanning devices are essential tool in the
More informationEstimating the Radiation-Induced Cancer Risks in Pediatric Computed Tomography
Iranian Journal of Medical Physics Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2016, 218-227 Received: August 20, 2016; Accepted: November 04, 2016 Original Article Estimating the Radiation-Induced Cancer Risks in Pediatric
More informationA multicentric study on patient dose in multislice CT
A multicentric study on patient dose in multislice CT A.Stratis 1, M.Molfetas 1, S.Kottou 2, A.Louizi 2 1. Medical Physics department, Evangelismos General hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece 2. Medical
More informationPatient / Organ Dose in CT
Patient / Organ Dose in CT Patient specific and organ dose estimation H.D. Nagel Dr. HD Nagel, Science & Technology for Radiology Buchholz / Germany www.sascrad.com 1 Topics CTDI & patient dose SSDE Organ
More informationWhy is CT Dose of Interest?
Why is CT Dose of Interest? CT usage has increased rapidly in the past decade Compared to other medical imaging CT produces a larger radiation dose. There is direct epidemiological evidence for a an increase
More informationDoses from CT examinations to children suffering from hydrocephalus
Doses from CT examinations to children suffering from hydrocephalus E. G. Friberg 1, L. J. Holmedal 2, I. Børretzen 1, K. Rosendahl 3 and H. M. Olerud 1 1 Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, P.O.
More informationTHE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OF SELECTED NIGERIAN X-RAY DEPARTMENTS TO EUROPEAN GUIDELINES ON GOOD RADIOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUES
IJRRAS 9 (1) October 11 www.arpapress.com/volumes/vol9issue1/ijrras_9_1_16.pdf THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OF SELECTED NIGERIAN X-RAY DEPARTMENTS TO EUROPEAN GUIDELINES ON GOOD RADIOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUES Bamidele
More informationEntrance surface dose measurements for routine X-ray examinations in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari hospitals
Iran. J. Radiat. Res., 2006; 4 (1): 29-33 Entrance surface dose measurements for routine X-ray examinations in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari hospitals D. Shahbazi-Gahrouei * Department of Medical Physics and
More informationOriginal Article Thoracic Imaging
Original Article Thoracic Imaging https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.6.1179 pissn 1229-6929 eissn 2005-8330 Korean J Radiol 2018;19(6):1179-1186 Size-Specific Dose Estimation In the Korean Lung Cancer
More informationDosimetry in digital mammography
Dosimetry in digital mammography Professor David Dance NCCPM, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, United kingdom Outline Why do dosimetry? History Essentials of European breast dosimetry protocol
More informationPatient Dose Estimates. from CT Examinations. Patient Dose Estimates
Patient Dose Estimates from CT Examinations Patient Dose Estimates from CT Examinations John M. Boone, Ph.D. Professor and Vice Chairman of Radiology Professor of Biomedical Engineering University of California,
More informationPatient Radiation Doses from Adult and Pediatric CT
Radiation Doses from CT CT Imaging Original Research Walter Huda 1 Awais Vance 1,2 Huda W, Vance A Keywords: MDCT, pediatric CT, physics of radiology, radiation dose DOI:.2214/AJR.06.01 Received January
More informationReducing Radiation Dose in Body CT: A Primer on Dose Metrics and Key CT Technical Parameters
Medical Physics and Informatics Review Maldjian and Goldman Reducing Radiation Dose in Body CT Medical Physics and Informatics Review FOCUS ON: Pierre D. Maldjian 1 Alice R. Goldman Maldjian PD, Goldman
More informationComparison of organ doses estimations in radiology with PCXMC application based on MIRD phantoms and CALDose-X application based on voxel phantoms
Comparison of organ doses estimations in radiology with PCXMC application based on MIRD phantoms and CALDose-X application based on voxel phantoms G. Gialousis 1, Z. Pappouli 2, A. Dimitriadis 2, E. Karavassilis
More informationRADIATION PROTECTION IN DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY. L19: Optimization of Protection in Mammography
IAEA Training Material on Radiation Protection in Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology RADIATION PROTECTION IN DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY L19: Optimization of Protection in Mammography
More informationCT Dosimetry in the Clinical Environment: Methods and Analysis
CT Dosimetry in the Clinical Environment: Methods and Analysis Manuel Arreola, Ph.D. DABR Associate Chair of Radiology Director, Medical Physics Graduate Program Department of Radiology University of Florida
More informationAsk EuroSafe Imaging Tips & Tricks. CT Working Group
Ask EuroSafe Imaging Tips & Tricks CT Working Group Organ Based Tube Current Modulation to Reduce Radiation Dose to Superficial Radiosensitive Organs Eileen Kelly (Galway University Hospitals, IE) Matthias
More informationMachine Learning Powered Automatic Organ Classification for Patient Specific Organ Dose Estimation
Machine Learning Powered Automatic Organ Classification for Patient Specific Organ Dose Estimation Junghwan Cho, Eunmi Lee, Hyunkwang Lee, Bob Liu, Xinhua Li, Shahein Tajmir, Dushyant Sahani, and Synho
More informationEstimated Risks of Radiation- Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT
David J. Brenner 1 Carl D. Elliston 1 Eric J. Hall 1 Walter E. Berdon 2 Received March 2, 2000; accepted after revision July 12, 2000. Supported in part by grant DE-FG02-98ER62686 from the United States
More informationDose Estimates for Nuclear Medicine Procedures: What are they? Where do they come from?
Dose Estimates for Nuclear Medicine Procedures: What are they? Where do they come from? SNM Continuing Education Lecture Salt Lake City, UT -- June 6, 2010 Darrell R. Fisher Pacific Northwest National
More informationLow-dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines for Pulmonary Nodules Management Version 2
Low-dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines for Pulmonary Nodules Management Version 2 The Committee for Management of CT-screening-detected Pulmonary Nodules 2009-2011 The Japanese Society of CT Screening
More informationEFFECTIVE DOSE ESTIMATION AND CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT DUE TO SOME SELECTED CT EXAMINATIONS AT SWEDEN GHANA MEDICAL CENTRE (SGMC)
EFFECTIVE DOSE ESTIMATION AND CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT DUE TO SOME SELECTED CT EXAMINATIONS AT SWEDEN GHANA MEDICAL CENTRE (SGMC) BY KOFI OKYERE AKYEA-LARBI 10442894 THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE MEDICAL
More informationAn Update of VirtualDose Software Used for Assessing Patient Organ Doses from CT Examinations
An Update of VirtualDose Software Used for Assessing Patient Organ Doses from CT Examinations Aiping Ding, X. George Xu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY USA http://rrmdg.rpi.edu 1 Acknowledgements
More informationPatient doses from X-ray computed tomography examinations by a single-array detector unit: Axial versus spiral mode
Patient doses from X-ray computed tomography examinations by a single-array detector unit: Axial versus spiral mode S.M. Ghavami 1, A. Mesbahi 2,3*, I. Pesianian 1 Iran. J. Radiat. Res., 2012; 10(2): 89-94
More informationAssessing the standard dose to standard patients for x-ray investigations
Assessing the standard dose to standard patients for x-ray investigations A. Almén and W. Leitz Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, SE-171 16 Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: anja.almen@ssi.se Abstract. The
More informationRadiation Dosimetry for CT Protocols
Radiation Dosimetry for CT Protocols This document contains radiation dosimetry information from CT scans and can be used by investigators to estimate the dosimetry information required by the JRSC or
More informationUltralow Dose Chest CT with MBIR
Ultralow Dose Chest CT with MBIR Ella A. Kazerooni, M.D. Professor & Director Cardiothoracic Radiology Associate Chair for Clinical Affairs University of Michigan Disclosures Consultant: GE Healthcare
More informationX-Ray & CT Physics / Clinical CT
Computed Tomography-Basic Principles and Good Practice X-Ray & CT Physics / Clinical CT INSTRUCTORS: Dane Franklin, MBA, RT (R) (CT) Office hours will be Tuesdays from 5pm to 6pm CLASSROOM: TIME: REQUIRED
More informationIMAGE GENTLY HOW CAN YOU HELP?
IMAGE GENTLY HOW CAN YOU HELP? Keith J. Strauss, MSc, FAAPM, FACR Director, Radiology Physics & Engineering Children s s Hospital Boston Harvard Medical School Acknowledgment Marilyn J. Goske,, MD Robert
More informationCT SCAN PROTOCOL. Shoulder
CT SCAN PROTOCOL Shoulder Purpose and Summary CT images made with this protocol are used to provide the orthopedic surgeon with a detailed 3D anatomical reconstruction of the patient s scapula and proximal
More informationTranslating Protocols Across Patient Size: Babies to Bariatric
Translating Protocols Across Patient Size: Babies to Bariatric Cynthia H. McCollough, PhD, FACR, FAAPM Professor of Radiologic Physics Director, CT Clinical Innovation Center Department of Radiology Mayo
More informationThe radiation dose in retrospective
The radiation dose in retrospective gated tdcoronary computed td tomography (CCT) Saeed AL Ahmari, Ghormallah AL Zahrani, Sumiah AL Helali, Samir AL Dulikan, Abdullah Bafagih, HibaKhashojji Prince Sultan
More informationChief Radiographer TEI Clinical Associate 2016
MDCT Principles i and Applications Ε ΑGADAKOS MSc Ε. ΑGADAKOS MSc Chief Radiographer TEI Clinical Associate 2016 Aim To understand d recent technological advances in MSCT and how they can be effectively
More informationMultislice CT versus cone beam CT: dosimetric and image quality comparision.
Multislice CT versus cone beam CT: dosimetric and image quality comparision. Poster No.: C-2589 Congress: ECR 2015 Type: Authors: Scientific Exhibit C. Dionisi 1, A. Crispo 2, E. Stefani 3, A. Lovaglio
More informationGATE MONTE CARLO DOSIMETRY SIMULATION OF MARS SPECTRAL CT
GATE MONTE CARLO DOSIMETRY SIMULATION OF MARS SPECTRAL CT R Aamir, C Lowe, J Damet, P Carbonez, A P H Butler, N Schleich, N G Anderson MARFO, Emmanuel Geant4 User Workshop 2017, Wollongong Overview MARS
More informationAdopting DAP as a dose metric in CT
Adopting DAP as a dose metric in CT Nick Weir Department of Medical Physics Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Lothian Dose Area Product (DAP) in CT Hypothesis: There are advantages to using DAP: (i) In
More informationEFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTIVE PATIENT EQUIPMENT FOR CT: AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC PHANTOM STUDY Barbara Ott 1, *, Anja Stüssi 2 and Roberto Mini 1
Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access published September 8, 2010 Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2010), pp. 1 9 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq214 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTIVE PATIENT EQUIPMENT FOR CT: AN
More informationDebra Pennington, MD Director of Imaging Dell Children s Medical Center
Debra Pennington, MD Director of Imaging Dell Children s Medical Center 1 Gray (Gy) is 1 J of radiation energy/ 1 kg matter (physical quantity absorbed dose) Diagnostic imaging doses in mgy (.001 Gy)
More information