The feasibility of a scanner-independent technique to estimate organ dose from MDCT scans: using CTDIvol to account for differences between scanners.

PURPOSE Monte Carlo radiation transport techniques have made it possible to accurately estimate the radiation dose to radiosensitive organs in patient models from scans performed with modern multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) scanners. However, there is considerable variation in organ doses across scanners, even when similar acquisition conditions are used. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a technique to estimate organ doses that would be scanner independent. This was accomplished by assessing the ability of CTDIvol measurements to account for differences in MDCT scanners that lead to organ dose differences. METHODS Monte Carlo simulations of 64-slice MDCT scanners from each of the four major manufacturers were performed. An adult female patient model from the GSF family of voxelized phantoms was used in which all ICRP Publication 103 radiosensitive organs were identified. A 120 kVp, full-body helical scan with a pitch of 1 was simulated for each scanner using similar scan protocols across scanners. From each simulated scan, the radiation dose to each organ was obtained on a per mA s basis (mGy/mA s). In addition, CTDIvol values were obtained from each scanner for the selected scan parameters. Then, to demonstrate the feasibility of generating organ dose estimates from scanner-independent coefficients, the simulated organ dose values resulting from each scanner were normalized by the CTDIvol value for those acquisition conditions. RESULTS CTDIvol values across scanners showed considerable variation as the coefficient of variation (CoV) across scanners was 34.1%. The simulated patient scans also demonstrated considerable differences in organ dose values, which varied by up to a factor of approximately 2 between some of the scanners. The CoV across scanners for the simulated organ doses ranged from 26.7% (for the adrenals) to 37.7% (for the thyroid), with a mean CoV of 31.5% across all organs. However, when organ doses are normalized by CTDIvoI values, the differences across scanners become very small. For the CTDIvol, normalized dose values the CoVs across scanners for different organs ranged from a minimum of 2.4% (for skin tissue) to a maximum of 8.5% (for the adrenals) with a mean of 5.2%. CONCLUSIONS This work has revealed that there is considerable variation among modern MDCT scanners in both CTDIvol and organ dose values. Because these variations are similar, CTDIvol can be used as a normalization factor with excellent results. This demonstrates the feasibility of establishing scanner-independent organ dose estimates by using CTDIvol to account for the differences between scanners.

[1]  D. Brenner,et al.  Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. , 2008, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce. , 2008, Health physics.

[3]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  Monte Carlo simulations to assess the effects of tube current modulation on breast dose for multidetector CT , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  K. Eckerman,et al.  Response functions for computing absorbed dose to skeletal tissues from photon irradiation. , 2007, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[5]  Marvin Rosenstein,et al.  Organ doses in diagnostic radiology , 1976 .

[6]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  In defense of body CT. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  R. Cloutier Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. , 1989 .

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

[9]  N Petoussi-Henss,et al.  ADULT FEMALE VOXEL MODELS OF DIFFERENT STATURE AND PHOTON CONVERSION COEFFICIENTS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION , 2004, Health physics.

[10]  W Panzer,et al.  Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. , 1999, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[11]  J J Morant,et al.  Monte Carlo calculation of radiation dose in CT examinations using phantom and patient tomographic models. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[13]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  Variability of surface and center position radiation dose in MDCT: Monte Carlo simulations using CTDI and anthropomorphic phantoms. , 2009, Medical physics.

[14]  J J DeMarco,et al.  A Monte Carlo based method to estimate radiation dose from multidetector CT (MDCT): cylindrical and anthropomorphic phantoms. , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  D. G. Jones,et al.  Normalised organ doses calculated using Monte Carlo techniques , 1991 .

[16]  J. S. Hendricks,et al.  MCNPX version 2.5.c , 2003 .

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

[18]  Michael F McNitt-Gray,et al.  AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[19]  Wesley E Bolch,et al.  Organ and effective doses in newborn patients during helical multislice computed tomography examination , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  Dose to radiosensitive organs during routine chest CT: effects of tube current modulation. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  Mythreyi Bhargavan,et al.  MEDICAL RADIATION EXPOSURE IN THE U.S. IN 2006: PRELIMINARY RESULTS , 2008, Health physics.

[22]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  A method to generate equivalent energy spectra and filtration models based on measurement for multidetector CT Monte Carlo dosimetry simulations. , 2009, Medical physics.

[23]  B Bednarz,et al.  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 , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  J. Damilakis,et al.  The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations. , 2005, Medical physics.

[25]  Robert L Dixon,et al.  A new look at CT dose measurement: beyond CTDI. , 2003, Medical physics.

[26]  W E Bolch,et al.  Voxel-based models representing the male and female ICRP reference adult--the skeleton. , 2007, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[27]  H. Nagel,et al.  CT-Expo - ein neuartiges Programm zur Dosisevaluierung in der CT , 2002 .

[28]  Cynthia H McCollough,et al.  It is time to retire the computed tomography dose index (CTDI) for CT quality assurance and dose optimization. Against the proposition. , 2006, Medical physics.

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