A comparison of methods to estimate organ doses in CT when utilizing approximations to the tube current modulation function.

PURPOSE Most methods to estimate patient dose from computed tomography (CT) exams have been developed based on fixed tube current scans. However, in current clinical practice, many CT exams are performed using tube current modulation (TCM). Detailed information about the TCM function is difficult to obtain and therefore not easily integrated into patient dose estimate methods. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of organ dose estimates obtained using methods that approximate the TCM function using more readily available data compared to estimates obtained using the detailed description of the TCM function. METHODS Twenty adult female models generated from actual patient thoracic CT exams and 20 pediatric female models generated from whole body PET∕CT exams were obtained with IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval. Detailed TCM function for each patient was obtained from projection data. Monte Carlo based models of each scanner and patient model were developed that incorporated the detailed TCM function for each patient model. Lungs and glandular breast tissue were identified in each patient model so that organ doses could be estimated from simulations. Three sets of simulations were performed: one using the original detailed TCM function (x, y, and z modulations), one using an approximation to the TCM function (only the z-axis or longitudinal modulation extracted from the image data), and the third was a fixed tube current simulation using a single tube current value which was equal to the average tube current over the entire exam. Differences from the reference (detailed TCM) method were calculated based on organ dose estimates. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated between methods after testing for normality. Equivalence test was performed to compare the equivalence limit between each method (longitudinal approximated TCM and fixed tube current method) and the detailed TCM method. Minimum equivalence limit was reported for each organ. RESULTS Doses estimated using the longitudinal approximated TCM resulted in small differences from doses obtained using the detailed TCM function. The calculated root-mean-square errors (RMSE) for adult female chest simulations were 9% and 3% for breasts and lungs, respectively; for pediatric female chest and whole body simulations RMSE were 9% and 7% for breasts and 3% and 1% for lungs, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficients were consistently high for the longitudinal approximated TCM method, ranging from 0.947 to 0.999, compared to the fixed tube current value ranging from 0.8099 to 0.9916. In addition, an equivalence test illustrated that across all models the longitudinal approximated TCM is equivalent to the detailed TCM function within up to 3% for lungs and breasts. CONCLUSIONS While the best estimate of organ dose requires the detailed description of the TCM function for each patient, extracting these values can be difficult. The presented results show that an approximation using available data extracted from the DICOM header provides organ dose estimates with RMSE of less than 10%. On the other hand, the use of the overall average tube current as a single tube current value was shown to result in poor and inconsistent estimates of organ doses.

[1]  D. Broga,et al.  Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States , 2009 .

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

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

[4]  Madan M Rehani,et al.  Patient exposure tracking: the IAEA smart card project. , 2011, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[5]  Takeshi Kubo,et al.  Extraction of tube current values from DICOM CT images for patient dose estimation. , 2010, Medical physics.

[6]  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.

[7]  Donald J. Schuirmann A comparison of the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure and the Power Approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability , 1987, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[8]  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.

[9]  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.

[10]  B. Schmidt,et al.  A PC program for estimating organ dose and effective dose values in computed tomography , 1999, European Radiology.

[11]  C. McCollough,et al.  CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[12]  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.

[13]  Robert A. Cribbie,et al.  Recommendations for applying tests of equivalence. , 2004, Journal of clinical psychology.

[14]  Mannudeep K Kalra,et al.  Computed tomography radiation dose optimization: scanning protocols and clinical applications of automatic exposure control. , 2005, Current problems in diagnostic radiology.

[15]  W A Kalender,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. , 1999, Medical physics.

[16]  I A Tsalafoutas,et al.  A method for calculating the dose length product from CT DICOM images. , 2011, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  Walter Huda,et al.  X-ray tube current modulation and patient doses in chest CT. , 2011, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[18]  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.

[19]  Holger Greess,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers , 1999, European Radiology.

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

[21]  Walter Huda,et al.  Organ doses to adult patients for chest CT. , 2010, Medical physics.

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

[23]  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.

[24]  W. Huda,et al.  Patient size and radiation exposure in thoracic, pelvic, and abdominal CT examinations performed with automatic exposure control. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  D. Bluemke,et al.  Tracking radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging devices at the NIH. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[26]  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.

[27]  W A Kalender,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. , 1999, Medical physics.