Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part II. Application to patients.

PURPOSE Current methods for estimating and reporting radiation dose from CT examinations are largely patient-generic; the body size and hence dose variation from patient to patient is not reflected. Furthermore, the current protocol designs rely on dose as a surrogate for the risk of cancer incidence, neglecting the strong dependence of risk on age and gender. The purpose of this study was to develop a method for estimating patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk from CT examinations. METHODS The study included two patients (a 5-week-old female patient and a 12-year-old male patient), who underwent 64-slice CT examinations (LightSpeed VCT, GE Healthcare) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis at our institution in 2006. For each patient, a nonuniform rational B-spine (NURBS) based full-body computer model was created based on the patient's clinical CT data. Large organs and structures inside the image volume were individually segmented and modeled. Other organs were created by transforming an existing adult male or female full-body computer model (developed from visible human data) to match the framework defined by the segmented organs, referencing the organ volume and anthropometry data in ICRP Publication 89. A Monte Carlo program previously developed and validated for dose simulation on the LightSpeed VCT scanner was used to estimate patient-specific organ dose, from which effective dose and risks of cancer incidence were derived. Patient-specific organ dose and effective dose were compared with patient-generic CT dose quantities in current clinical use: the volume-weighted CT dose index (CTDIvol) and the effective dose derived from the dose-length product (DLP). RESULTS The effective dose for the CT examination of the newborn patient (5.7 mSv) was higher but comparable to that for the CT examination of the teenager patient (4.9 mSv) due to the size-based clinical CT protocols at our institution, which employ lower scan techniques for smaller patients. However, the overall risk of cancer incidence attributable to the CT examination was much higher for the newborn (2.4 in 1000) than for the teenager (0.7 in 1000). For the two pediatric-aged patients in our study, CTDIvol underestimated dose to large organs in the scan coverage by 30%-48%. The effective dose derived from DLP using published conversion coefficients differed from that calculated using patient-specific organ dose values by -57% to 13%, when the tissue weighting factors of ICRP 60 were used, and by -63% to 28%, when the tissue weighting factors of ICRP 103 were used. CONCLUSIONS It is possible to estimate patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk from CT examinations by combining a validated Monte Carlo program with patient-specific anatomical models that are derived from the patients' clinical CT data and supplemented by transformed models of reference adults. With the construction of a large library of patient-specific computer models encompassing patients of all ages and weight percentiles, dose and risk can be estimated for any patient prior to or after a CT examination. Such information may aid in decisions for image utilization and can further guide the design and optimization of CT technologies and scan protocols.

[1]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[2]  Thomas B. Shope,et al.  A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. , 1981 .

[3]  K. F. Eckerman,et al.  Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources: 6, Newborn , 1987 .

[4]  Icrp 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection , 1991 .

[5]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm , 1996 .

[6]  William Schroeder,et al.  The Visualization Toolkit: An Object-Oriented Approach to 3-D Graphics , 1997 .

[7]  D. Brenner,et al.  Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  C L Chapple,et al.  Effective dose in paediatric computed tomography. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  J. Valentin Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values , 2002, Annals of the ICRP.

[10]  Nina Petoussi-Henss,et al.  The GSF family of voxel phantoms , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  John M Boone,et al.  Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. , 2003, Radiology.

[12]  J J DeMarco,et al.  A Monte Carlo-based method to estimate radiation dose from spiral CT: from phantom testing to patient-specific models , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  E. Nickoloff,et al.  Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. , 2003, Medical physics.

[14]  B.M.W. Tsui,et al.  Extension of the 4D NCAT phantom to dynamic X-ray CT simulation , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[15]  P. Shrimpton,et al.  Assessment of Patient Dose in CT , 2004 .

[16]  P C Shrimpton,et al.  National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  Wesley E Bolch,et al.  Whole-body voxel phantoms of paediatric patients—UF Series B , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  Wesley E Bolch,et al.  An assessment of bone marrow and bone endosteum dosimetry methods for photon sources , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  Jack Valentin,et al.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[20]  Michael J Pentecost,et al.  American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[21]  Jacob Geleijns,et al.  Overranging in multisection CT: quantification and relative contribution to dose--comparison of four 16-section CT scanners. , 2007, Radiology.

[22]  J J DeMarco,et al.  Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: effects of different size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  Wesley E Bolch,et al.  Organ and effective doses in pediatric patients undergoing helical multislice computed tomography examination. , 2007, Medical physics.

[24]  D. Brenner,et al.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  C J Martin,et al.  Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[26]  Willi A. Kalender,et al.  Validation of a Monte Carlo tool for patient-specific dose simulations in multi-slice computed tomography , 2008, European Radiology.

[27]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Patient-specific dose estimation for pediatric chest CT. , 2008, Medical physics.

[28]  Colin J. Martin,et al.  The application of effective dose to medical exposures. , 2007, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[29]  Bo Wang,et al.  Age-specific effective doses for pediatric MSCT examinations at a large children’s hospital using DLP conversion coefficients: a simple estimation method , 2008, Pediatric Radiology.

[30]  William H. Judy,et al.  The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT , 2008 .

[31]  Walter Huda,et al.  Effective dose: a useful concept in diagnostic radiology. , 2007, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[32]  D J Brenner,et al.  Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. , 2008, The British journal of radiology.

[33]  Maria Zankl,et al.  Reducing radiation dose to selected organs by selecting the tube start angle in MDCT helical scans: a Monte Carlo based study. , 2009, Medical physics.

[34]  R. Nelson,et al.  Radiation dose savings for adult pulmonary embolus 64-MDCT using bismuth breast shields, lower peak kilovoltage, and automatic tube current modulation. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[35]  V F Cassola,et al.  FASH and MASH: female and male adult human phantoms based on polygon mesh surfaces: I. Development of the anatomy , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  The feasibility of a scanner-independent technique to estimate organ dose from MDCT scans: using CTDIvol to account for differences between scanners. , 2010, Medical physics.

[37]  Daniel Lodwick,et al.  The UF family of reference hybrid phantoms for computational radiation dosimetry , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  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. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[39]  Steve B. Jiang,et al.  Development of a GPU-based Monte Carlo dose calculation code for coupled electron–photon transport , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[40]  W. Huda,et al.  Point/counterpoint. The use of effective dose for medical procedures is inappropriate. , 2010, Medical physics.

[41]  Niels Kuster,et al.  The Virtual Family—development of surface-based anatomical models of two adults and two children for dosimetric simulations , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[42]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part I. development and validation of a Monte Carlo program. , 2010, Medical physics.