Incident air kerma to absorbed organ dose conversion factors for breast and lung in PA thorax radiography: The effect of patient thickness and radiation quality

Optimal conversion coefficient from easily measurable dose to effective dose with consideration to radiation quality for posterior-anterior chest radiography

Effective dose is sometimes used to compare medical radiation exposure to patients and natural radiation for providing explanations about radiation exposure to patients, but its calculation is lengthy and requires dedicated measuring devices. The purpose of this study was to identify the most suitable conversion coefficient for conversion of easily measurable dose to effective dose in posterior-anterior chest radiography, and to evaluate its accuracy by direct measurement. We constructed an examination environment using Monte Carlo simulation, and evaluated the variation in conversion coefficients from incident air kerma (IAK), entrance-surface air kerma (ESAK), and air kerma-area product (KAP) to effective dose when the irradiation field size and radiation quality were changed. Effective doses were also measured directly using thermoluminescence dosimeters and compared with the effective dose obtained from conversion coefficients. The KAP conversion coefficient most effectively suppressed the effect of irradiation field size, and was then used to set conversion coefficients for various half-value layers. The optimal conversion coefficient was 0.00023 [mSv/(mGy·cm2)] at 120 kVp (half-value layer = 5.5 mmAl). Evaluation of the direct measurements obtained with various radiation qualities revealed that the accuracy of the conversion coefficient was maintained at ≤ 11%. The proposed conversion coefficient can be easily calculated even in facilities that do not have equipment for measuring effective dose, and might enable the use of effective dose for providing explanations about radiation exposure to patients.

A novel personalized dosimetry method for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures

OBJECTIVE

To estimate radiation doses for the primarily irradiated organs/tissues of patients subjected to standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures using a novel personalized dosimetry method.

METHODS

Dosimetric and anthropometric data were collected prospectively for eight patients who underwent standard EVAR procedures. Patient-specific Monte Carlo simulations were performed to estimate organ/tissue doses from each of the fluoroscopic and digital subtraction angiography acquisitions involved in EVAR. Individual-specific cumulative absorbed doses were estimated for the skin, spinal bone marrow, heart, kidneys, liver, colon, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and spleen and compared to corresponding values estimated through a commercially available dosimetric software package that employs standardized phantoms.

RESULTS

The highest organ/tissue radiation doses from EVAR were found for the skin, spinal bone marrow, kidneys, and spleen as 192.4 mGy, 96.7 mGy, 72.9 mGy, and 33.6 mGy respectively, while the doses to the heart, liver, colon, bladder, pancreas, and stomach were 6.3 mGy, 14.4 mGy, 18.4 mGy, 14.8 mGy, 21.6 mGy, and 11.2 mGy respectively. Corresponding dose values using standardized phantoms were found to differ up to 151%.

CONCLUSION

Considerable radiation doses may be received by primarily exposed organs/tissues during standard EVAR. The specific size/anatomy of the patient and the variation in exposure parameters/beam angulation between different projections commonly involved in EVAR procedures should be taken into account if reliable organ dose data are to be derived.

KEY POINTS

• A novel patient-specific dosimetry method was utilized to estimate radiation doses to the primarily irradiated organs/tissues of patients subjected to standard endovascular aneurysm repair procedures. • The use of standardized mathematical anthropomorphic phantoms to derive organ dose from fluoroscopically guided procedures may result in considerable inaccuracies due to differences in the assumed organ position/volume/shape compared to patients.

ESTIMATES OF PATIENT DOSES AND KERMA-AREA PRODUCT MONITORING IN DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

The application of the kerma-area product (PKA) meter is increased rapidly in dosimetry. This study presents measurements of PKA in adherence to the International Atomic Energy Agency protocol for 300 adult patients in digital radiographic procedures. Effective doses (ED) were calculated from PKA measurements and conversion coefficients (E-103/PKA) obtained from the International Commission on radiological protection 103. In skull posteroanterior (PA), skull lateral (LAT), cervical spine anteroposterior (AP), cervical spine LAT, chest PA, abdomen AP, lumbar spine AP, pelvis AP and lumbar spine LAT, the third-quartile PKA values were found to be 0.2, 0.28, 0.33, 0.19, 0.26, 0.95, 0.93, 0.96 and 3.15 Gycm2, and estimated mean EDs were 0.005, 0.008, 0.056, 0.021, 0.037, 0.146, 0.165, 0.097 and 0.258 mSv, respectively. The third-quartile PKA values were suggested as local diagnostic reference levels (LDRLs). Results were compared with the diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) of the UK, the European Commission, previously published LDRLs in Greece and China by Metaxas et al. and Zhang and Chu, respectively. The PKA (third-quartile) value for cervical spine AP was 120% higher than UK 2010 DRLs, lumbar spine LAT was 123% higher than LDRLs given by Metaxas et al. and chest PA was 160% higher than UK 2010 DRLs and 225% higher than Metaxas et al. provided LDRLs. The PKA results were lower than the UK, and two studies in Greece by Metaxas et al. except for chest PA, cervical spine AP and lumbar spine LAT showed the need for further optimization. The LDRLs reported in this study may further contribute to establishing future national DRLs.

Challenges assessing radiation risk in image-guided treatments-implications on optimisation of radiological protection

The present work explores challenges when assessing organ dose and effective dose concerning image-guided treatments. During these treatments considerable x-ray imaging is employed using technically advanced angiographic x-ray equipment. Thus, the radiation dose to organs and the related radiation risk are relatively difficult to assess. This has implications on the optimisation process, in which assessing radiation dose is one important part. In this study, endovascular aortic repair treatments were investigated. Organ dose and effective dose were assessed using Monte Carlo calculations together with a detailed specification of the exposure situation and patient size. The resulting normalised organ dose and effective dose with respect to kerma-area product for patient sizes and radiation qualities representative for the patient group were evaluated. The variability and uncertainty were investigated and their possible impact on optimisation of radiation protection was discussed. Exposure parameters, source to detector distances etc varied between treatments and also varied between image acquisitions during one treatment. Thus the derived normalised organ dose and effective dose exhibited a large range of values depending greatly on used exposure parameters and patient configuration. The derived normalised values for effective dose varied approximately between 0.05 and 0.30 mSv per Gy·cm² when taking patient sizes and exposure parameters into consideration, the values for organ doses exhibited even larger variation. The study shows a possible systematic error for derived organ doses and effective dose up to a factor of 7 if detailed exposure or patient characteristics are not known and/or not taken into consideration. The intra-treatment variability was also substantial and the normalised dose values varied up to a factor of 2 between image acquisitions during one treatment. The study shows that the use of conversion factors that are not adapted to the clinic can cause the radiation dose to be exaggerated or underestimated considerably. A conclusion from the present study is that the systematic error could be large and should be estimated together with random errors. A large uncertainty makes it difficult to detect true differences in radiation dose between methods and technology-a prerequisite for optimising radiation protection for image-guided treatments.