Calculation of scan length and size-specific dose at longitudinal positions of body CT scans using dose equilibrium function

BACKGROUND

Dose evaluation at longitudinal positions of body computed tomography (CT) scans is useful for CT quality assurance programs and patient organ dose evaluation. Accurate estimates depend on both patient size and scan length.

PURPOSE

To propose practical evaluation of the average dose to the transverse slab of an axial image slice for adult body CT examinations, considering not only patient size but also scan length, and to compare the results with those of Monte Carlo (Geant4) simulation [D_sim (z)] and size-specific dose estimates at longitudinal positions of scans [SSDE(z)] from international standards (IEC publication no. 62985).

METHODS

In a scan series, the total dose at each z-axis location was calculated using the input information identical to the SSDE(z) evaluation. Each axial image slice (slice thickness, 2.5 or 5 mm) was first considered independently. Its z-axis coverage and CTDI_vol (from the DICOM headers) were used to directly calculate a z-axis dose profile for the average dose over the cross-section of a water phantom, using the approach to equilibrium function. The phantom diameter was taken to be equal to the patient water equivalent diameter at that slice. The above was repeated at all slices and the dose at each z-axis location was accumulated from all profiles, referred to as D_calc (z). For validation, we considered a cohort of 65 patients, who underwent chest and abdominopelvic examinations. The resultant D_calc (z) was compared with D_sim (z) and SSDE(z), both available in a previous paper.

RESULTS

D_calc (z) evaluation could be used to accurately assess the scan range average dose, with an accuracy of 7.1%-8.7% for 65 patients in two examinations. On individual image slices, the maximum difference in magnitude between D_calc (z) and D_sim (z) [and between SSDE(z) and D_sim (z) in parentheses] was 37.5% (85%) [two edges (2 × 5 cm) of chest scan range], 17.8% (35.2%) (the remaining central region of chest scan), 26.8% (74.1%) [two edges (2 × 5 cm) of abdominopelvic scan range], and 14.2% (22.5%) (the remaining central region of abdominopelvic scan).

CONCLUSIONS

Identical input data are used for D_calc (z) and SSDE(z) evaluations. The latter is limited to the z-axis locations within scan range. At each image slice, SSDE(z) is equivalent to the midpoint dose of a fixed-mA scan of 15-30 cm (scan length). In contrast, D_calc (z) considers dose accumulation from varying scan length (from sub-centimeter to about 1 m) and tube current, and dose profile is also computed outside scan range. Besides greatly improving dose evaluation for individual image slices, D_calc (z) allows for evaluating dose accumulation from multiple series, which typically span different scan ranges. Our proposal may assist CT manufacturers and dose index monitoring software in assessing dose at longitudinal positions of body CT scans.

Patient-level dose monitoring in computed tomography: tracking cumulative dose from multiple multi-sequence exams with tube current modulation in children

BACKGROUND

In children exposed to multiple computed tomography (CT) exams, performed with varying z-axis coverage and often with tube current modulation, it is inaccurate to add volume CT dose index (CTDI_vol) and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) to obtain cumulative dose values.

OBJECTIVE

To introduce the patient-size-specific z-axis dose profile and its dose line integral (DLI) as new dose metrics, and to use them to compare cumulative dose calculations against conventional measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all children with 2 or more abdominal-pelvic CT scans performed from 2013 through 2019, we retrospectively recorded all series kV, z-axis tube current profile, CTDI_vol, dose-length product (DLP) and calculated SSDE. We constructed dose profiles as a function of z-axis location for each series. One author identified the z-axis location of the superior mesenteric artery origin on each series obtained to align the dose profiles for construction of each patient's cumulative profile. We performed pair-wise comparisons between the peak dose of the cumulative patient dose profile and ΣSSDE, and between ΣDLI and ΣDLP.

RESULTS

We recorded dose data in 143 series obtained in 48 children, ages 0-2 years (n=15) and 8-16 years (n=33): ΣSSDE 12.7±6.7 and peak dose 15.1±8.1 mGy, ΣDLP 278±194 and ΣDLI 550±292 mGy·cm. Peak dose exceeded ΣSSDE by 20.6% (interquartile range [IQR]: 9.9-26.4%, P<0.001), and ΣDLI exceeded ΣDLP by 114% (IQR: 86.5-147.0%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our methodology represents a novel approach for evaluating radiation exposure in recurring pediatric abdominal CT examinations, both at the individual and population levels. Under a wide range of patient variables and acquisition conditions, graphic depiction of the cumulative z-axis dose profile across and beyond scan ranges, including the peak dose of the profile, provides a better tool for cumulative dose documentation than simple summations of SSDE. ΣDLI is advantageous in characterizing overall energy absorption over ΣDLP, which significantly underestimated this in all children.

Fetal dose evaluation for body CT examinations of pregnant patients during all stages of pregnancy

PURPOSE

CTDI_vol-to-fetal-dose coefficients from Monte Carlo simulations are useful for fetal dose evaluations, but the available data is limited to the fetus being completely inside the abdominopelvic scan range. Whereas in a chest examination, the fetus is completely outside the scan range. In an abdominal examination, the fetus after 16 gestational weeks is partly in the scan region, and an earlier fetus is completely outside of it. This work proposes a practical approach to evaluate fetal dose for pregnant patients undergoing body CT examinations, without using Monte Carlo simulation.

METHODS

The proposed method was based on the z-axis dose profile computed for a CT examination, considering CTDI_vol, scan range, mA, and maternal WED (water equivalent diameter) at the fetus centroid. Fetal average dose was calculated over the fetus z-axis coverage. For validation, we considered a reference dataset of 24 pregnant patients, each underwent two abdominopelvic examinations (fixed mA, tube current modulation). WED was 30.1 ± 3.3 (25.3-35.6) cm [mean(range)]. Gestational age was <5 weeks for one patient, and 20.3 ± 9.1 (5-35.9) weeks for the others. Fetal depth (from the anterior skin surface to the most anterior part of fetus) was 6.1 ± 2.1 (2.5-10.9) cm. We further considered three whole-body models of a pregnant patient (gestational age, 3, 6, 9 months; weight, 62-73 kg) undergoing chest, abdominal, and abdominopelvic examinations (fixed mA). For the patients and models, profile-based fetal dose calculations were compared with the results of Monte Carlo simulations. Statistical software (R, version 3.5.1) was used to determine the mean and 95th percentile.

RESULTS

The fetal dose difference between profile-based evaluations and Monte Carlo simulations was (5.9 ± 3.8)% for 24 fixed-mA examinations, (5.8 ± 4.6)% for 24 tube current modulated examinations, and (8.8 ± 5.9)% for the whole-body models in three scan ranges.

CONCLUSIONS

Profile-based fetal dose calculations can be performed for patients in body CT, considering maternal size, fetus size and location, and whether fetus is completely inside, partly inside, or outside scan ranges.

Accuracy of weighted CTDI in estimating average dose delivered to CTDI phantoms: An experimental study

PURPOSE

The concept of the weighted computed tomography dose index ( CTDI w ) was proposed in 1995 to represent the average CTDI across an axial section of a cylindrical phantom. The purpose of this work was to experimentally re-examine the validity of the underlying assumptions behind CTDI w for modern MDCT systems.

METHODS

To enable experimental mapping of CTDI 100 in the axial plane, in-house 16 and 32 cm cylindrical phantoms were fabricated to allow the pencil chamber to reach any arbitrary axial location within the phantoms. The phantoms were scanned on a clinical MDCT with five beam collimation widths, three bowtie filters, and four kV levels. To evaluate the linearity and rotational invariance assumptions implicitly made when the weighting factors of 1/3 and 2/3 in the CTDI w formula were originally derived, CTDI 100 was measured at different radial and angular locations within the phantom for different collimation, bowtie, and kV combinations. The average CTDI ( CTDI avg ) across the axial plane was calculated from the experimental two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution and was compared with the traditional CTDI w .

RESULTS

For both phantoms under all scan conditions, the axial dose distributions were found to have significant angular dependence, potentially due to the x-ray attenuation by the patient couch or the head holder. The radial dose profiles were also found to significantly deviate from linearity in many cases due to the presence of the bowtie filter. When only the 12 o'clock peripheral CTDI 100 and the traditional weighting factors were used to calculate CTDI w , the average dose was overestimated in the 16 cm phantom by up to 8.4% at isocenter and up to 35.3% when the phantom was off-centered by 6 cm; in the 32 cm phantom at isocenter, the average dose was overestimated by up to 12.8%. Using an average of the four peripheral CTDI 100 measurements at the 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock locations reduced the error of CTDI w to within 1.2% in the 16 cm phantom. For the 32 cm phantom, even by using the average of the peripheral measurements, the traditional CTDI w underestimated the average dose by up to 4.3% due to aggressive drop-off of the CTDI 100 at the phantom periphery.

CONCLUSIONS

The linearity and rotational-invariance assumptions behind the traditional CTDI w formalism may not be valid for modern CT systems and thus CTDI w may not accurately represent the average dose or radiation output within a CTDI phantom. Utilizing data from all four peripheral locations always improves accuracy of CTDI w in representing the true average dose. For the large (32 cm) phantom, nonlinear models and more measurement points are needed if a more precise estimation of the average axial dose is required.

Radiation dose dependence on subject size in abdominal computed tomography: Water phantom and patient model comparison

PURPOSE

Development of patient organ dose evaluation method in computed tomography (CT) needs to model the correlation between organ dose and patient size, under various conditions of scan length, tube current lineshape, and organ location. To facilitate this task, this work was to perform a comprehensive study of the relationship between the dose to water phantom and its diameter under various settings of phantom axis, scan length, and the location across or beyond the scanned range.

METHODS

A dose calculation algorithm and the published data by Li et al. [Med. Phys. 39, 5347-5352 (2012); 40, 031903 (2013); 43, 5878-5888 (2016)] were used to calculate longitudinal dose distribution D_L (z) in 10- to 50-cm diameter water phantoms undergoing constant tube current scans. The relationship between dose and phantom diameter was examined on three phantom axes (center, cross-sectional average, periphery), at seven scan lengths from 15 to 70 cm, and at eight longitudinal locations within or beyond each scan range. The water phantom results were compared to those of patient models of eight previous studies.

RESULTS

For the water phantoms matching the abdominal perimeters (36.3-124.5 cm) of the GSF family of voxelized phantoms, the median and range of D_L (z)(water) across scan range were consistent with those of the organ doses from the GSF phantom abdominal scans of a previous study. In 41 water phantoms (diameters 10-50 cm), D_L (z)(water) at locations inside scan range decreased with increasing phantom diameters. Exponential regression analysis of the above trend yielded regression parameters approximately consistent with those of phantom or patient models of eight previous studies. However, the usual exponential function might not be optimal for modeling the dose dependence on subject size. Inside scan range, the log(dose) vs diameter curve was non-linear on a semilogarithmic graph. Outside of scan range, dose might increase with larger subject sizes, contradicting to the exponential attenuation law. In the CT examinations of a patient population, direct modeling of organ dose dependence on patient size would be more challenging due to varying scan lengths and changing organ distances to the scan range centers.

CONCLUSION

An efficient approach to take into account the abdominal organ dose dependences on other factors is to calculate D_L (z)(water) with the water equivalent diameter, scan length, and tube current lineshape from the patient examinations, and to evaluate the organ dose to D_L (z)(water) ratio, where z is at the organ's longitudinal location. The ratio may be used for abdominal organ dose evaluation in the patient examinations. How to make use of D_L (z)(water) for organ dose evaluation in other body regions may be explored in the future.

Characterization of radiation dose from tube current modulated CT examinations with considerations of both patient size and variable tube current

PURPOSE

The volume CT dose index (CTDI_vol ) and the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) are widely used for monitoring patient dose from CT examinations. Both metrics may represent the average dose over the central scan plane of the CTDI phantom or the patient under constant tube current (mA), but they are not intended for the tube current modulation (TCM)-enabled CT examinations, in which the peak dose across the scanned range may not be at the scan range center. To overcome the limitation, this paper illustrates an alternative approach, its implementation, and the relationship between longitudinal dose distribution D_L (z) in water cylinder and mA line shape, scan length, as well as phantom diameter.

METHODS

A dose calculation algorithm and the published data by Li et al. [Med. Phys. 40, 031903 (10pp.) (2013); 41, 111910 (5pp.) (2014)] were used to calculate D_L (z) for the central and peripheral axes of 10- to 50-cm diameter water phantoms undergoing CT scans of one constant and three variable mA distributions, each of which in three scan lengths of 10, 28.6, and 50 cm. All scans had an identical average tube current over the scan ranges. The results in the scanned ranges were used to assess the D_L (z) to mA(z) ratios, and their coefficients of variation (CV = stdev/mean) were used to compare the line shapes of D_L (z) and mA(z) for congruence: identical line shapes would result in CV = 0, but largely different line shapes would result in high CV.

RESULTS

In 30-cm diameter water phantom, the line shape of D_L (z) was largely different from that of mA(z). CV was higher in a variable mA scan than in a constant mA scan. As the scan length of variable mA scan increased, CV mostly decreased, and the line shape of D_L (z) more closely resembled that of mA(z). When two phantom axes were compared, CV was smaller and the line shape of D_L (z) more closely resembled that of mA(z) on the peripheral axis than on the central axis. In 41 water phantoms included in this study, CV mostly increased with phantom diameter, and approached the limiting levels on the peripheral axes of large phantoms. In constant mA scans, CV ranged from 5.5% to 14.0% on the phantom central axes and from 4.6% to 6.4% on the phantom peripheral axes. However, in variable tube current scans, CV ranged from 7.4% to 70.0% on the phantom central axes and from 5.1% to 35.9% on the phantom peripheral axes.

CONCLUSION

D_L (z) (water) may be advantageous over current CT dose metrics in characterizing the dose dependences on both patient size and mA line shape from tube current modulated examinations. Evaluating D_L (z) (water) with the water equivalent diameter and tube current curve from clinical examinations has a potential to improve CT dose monitoring program.

Assessment of radiation dose from abdominal quantitative CT with short scan length

OBJECTIVE

To assess radiation dose for patients who received abdominal quantitative CT and to compare the midpoint dose [D_L(0)] at the centre of a 1-cm scan length with the volume CT dose index (CTDI_vol). Although the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) proposed in The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report No. 204 is not applicable for short-length scans, commercial dose-monitoring software, such as Radimetrics^™ Enterprise Platform (Bayer HealthCare, Whippany, NJ), reports SSDE for all scans. SSDE was herein compared with D_L(0).

METHODS

Data were analyzed from 398 abdominal quantitative CT examinations in 165 males and 233 females. The CTDI_vol was 4.66 mGy, and the scan length was 1 cm for all examinations. Radimetrics was used to extract patient diameter and SSDE. D_L(0) was assessed using a previously reported method that takes into account both patient size and scan length.

RESULTS

The mean patient diameter was 28.5 ± 6.3 cm (range, 16.5-46.6 cm); the mean SSDE was 6.22 ± 1.36 mGy (range, 3.12-9.42 mGy); and the mean D_L(0) was 2.97 ± 0.95 mGy (range, 1.18-5.77 mGy). As patient diameter increased, the D_L(0) to CTDI_vol ratio decreased, ranging from 1.24 to 0.25; the D_L(0) to SSDE ratio also decreased, ranging from 0.61 to 0.38.

CONCLUSION

The dose to the patients from abdominal quantitative CT may be largely different from CTDI_vol and SSDE. This study demonstrates the necessity of taking into account not only patient size but also scan length for evaluating the dose from short-length scans. Advances in knowledge: In CT examinations with 1-cm scan length, dose evaluation needs to take into account both patient size and scan length. An omission of either factor can result in an erroneous result.