Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults.

PURPOSE To investigate prospectively which of several body size parameters are suitable for individual dose adaptation in body computed tomography (CT) of adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three body regions (thorax, abdomen, pelvis) were scanned exclusively for clinical reasons, with institutional ethical approval and informed consent. For each of the three regions, 50 men and 50 women (aged 18-87 years) were studied (300 scans total). Individual x-ray properties for each scan were summarized with a water-equivalent diameter (Dw). Different body size parameters, based on weight, height, and shape, were correlated with Dw by using regression analysis. This resulted in Dw estimation errors of different magnitudes, indicated with 95% prediction intervals. The errors from weight were compared with those from each of the other body parameters by using comparison of variance in paired samples (P < .05). In addition, a topogram-based estimate for Dw was studied, which simulated an automated body size measurement. RESULTS For the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, mean Dw was 28.0, 29.1, and 29.3 cm, and estimation of Dw from weight enabled 95% prediction intervals of +/-2.5, +/-2.4, and +/-2.6 cm, respectively. Combinations of height and weight were only slightly more or even less exact than were measurements from only weight. Diameter-related parameters such as body circumference were similar to or better than weight. However, the topogram-based estimate was significantly more exact. CONCLUSION Body weight and circumference enable suitable estimates for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults if automated dose adaptation is not available.

[1]  B. J. Perry,et al.  Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 3. Radiation dose considerations. , 1973, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  G. Hounsfield.  Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part I. Description of system. 1973. , 1973, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  T. Toth.  Dose reduction opportunities for CT scanners , 2002, Pediatric Radiology.

[4]  K. Hahn,et al.  Spiral-CT des Abdomens: Gewichtsadaptierte Dosisreduktion , 2001 .

[5]  W Huda,et al.  Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations. , 2000, Medical physics.

[6]  A. Wainwright,et al.  A practical approach to the first iteration in the optimization of radiation dose and image quality in CT: estimates of the collective dose savings achieved. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  Willibald Pschyrembel,et al.  Pschyrembel Klinisches Wörterbuch , 2001 .

[8]  James H Thrall,et al.  Clinical comparison of standard-dose and 50% reduced-dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  R. Felix,et al.  Relationships between physical dose quantities and patient dose in CT. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  J. Haaga,et al.  The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. , 1981, Radiology.

[11]  J. Haaga,et al.  Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  W Huda,et al.  An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. , 1997, Radiology.

[13]  R. A. Brooks,et al.  Principles of computer assisted tomography (CAT) in radiographic and radioisotopic imaging , 1976, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  D. R. White,et al.  The composition of body tissues. , 1986, The British journal of radiology.

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

[16]  H. Greess,et al.  Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions , 2000, European Radiology.

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

[18]  R. Brooks,et al.  Statistical limitations in x-ray reconstructive tomography. , 1976, Medical physics.

[19]  G. Starck,et al.  A method to obtain the same levels of CT image noise for patients of various sizes, to minimize radiation dose. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[20]  A Stargardt,et al.  Individually Adapted Examination Protocols for Reduction of Radiation Exposure in Chest CT , 2001, Investigative radiology.

[21]  D W McRobbie,et al.  Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, Influencing Parameters, Dose Assessment, Optimisation, Scanner Data, Terminology , 2001 .

[22]  W Huda,et al.  Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. , 2000, Radiology.

[23]  M. Kalra,et al.  Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. , 2004, Radiology.