AAPM medical physics practice guideline 1.a: CT protocol management and review practice guideline

Protocol parameter extraction and centralization framework for comprehensive and in-depth CT protocol review and management

CT protocol management is an arduous task that requires expertise from a variety of radiology professionals, including technologists, radiologists, radiology IT professionals, and medical physicists. Each CT vendor has unique, proprietary protocol file structures, some of which may vary by scanner model, making it difficult to develop a universal framework for distilling technical parameters to a human-readable file format. An ideal solution for CT protocol management is to minimize the work required for parameter extraction by introducing a data format into the workflow that is universal to all CT scanners. In this paper, we report a framework for CT protocol management that converts raw protocol files to an intermediary format before outputting them in a human-readable format for a variety of practical clinical applications, including routine protocol review, protocol version tracking, and cross-protocol comparisons. The framework was developed in Python 3. Technical parameters of interest were determined via collaborative effort between medical physicists and lead technologists. Protocol files were extracted and analyzed from a variety of scanners across our hospital-wide CT fleet, including various systems from Siemens and GE. Protocols were subcategorized based on relevant technical parameters into regular, dual-energy, and cardiac CT protocols. Backend code for technical parameter extraction from raw protocol files to a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format was performed on a per-system basis. Conversion from JSON to a readable output format (MS Excel) was performed identically for all scanners using the universal framework developed and presented in this work. Example results for Siemens and GE scanners are shown, including side-by-side comparisons for protocols with similar clinical indications. In conclusion, our CT protocol management framework may be deployed on any CT system to improve clinical efficiency in protocol review and upkeep.

How Do Cancer-Specific Computed Tomography Protocols Compare With the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry? An Analysis of Computed Tomography Dose at 2 Cancer Centers

BACKGROUND

Little guidance exists on how to stratify radiation dose according to diagnostic task. Changing dose for different cancer types is currently not informed by the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry dose survey.

METHODS

A total of 9602 patient examinations were pulled from 2 National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers. Computed tomography dose (CTDI vol ) was extracted, and patient water equivalent diameter was calculated. N-way analysis of variance was used to compare the dose levels between 2 protocols used at site 1, and three protocols used at site 2.

RESULTS

Sites 1 and 2 both independently stratified their doses according to cancer indications in similar ways. For example, both sites used lower doses ( P < 0.001) for follow-up of testicular cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma. Median dose at median patient size from lowest to highest dose level for site 1 were 17.9 (17.7-18.0) mGy (mean [95% confidence interval]) and 26.8 (26.2-27.4) mGy. For site 2, they were 12.1 (10.6-13.7) mGy, 25.5 (25.2-25.7) mGy, and 34.2 (33.8-34.5) mGy. Both sites had higher doses ( P < 0.001) between their routine and high-image-quality protocols, with an increase of 48% between these doses for site 1 and 25% for site 2. High-image-quality protocols were largely applied for detection of low-contrast liver lesions or subtle pelvic pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that 2 cancer centers independently choose to stratify their cancer doses in similar ways. Sites 1 and 2 dose data were higher than the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry dose survey data. We thus propose including a cancer-specific subset for the dose registry.

Artificial Intelligence and the Medical Physicist: Welcome to the Machine

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science dedicated to giving machines or computers the ability to perform human-like cognitive functions, such as learning, problem-solving, and decision making. Since it is showing superior performance than well-trained human beings in many areas, such as image classification, object detection, speech recognition, and decision-making, AI is expected to change profoundly every area of science, including healthcare and the clinical application of physics to healthcare, referred to as medical physics. As a result, the Italian Association of Medical Physics (AIFM) has created the “AI for Medical Physics” (AI4MP) group with the aims of coordinating the efforts, facilitating the communication, and sharing of the knowledge on AI of the medical physicists (MPs) in Italy. The purpose of this review is to summarize the main applications of AI in medical physics, describe the skills of the MPs in research and clinical applications of AI, and define the major challenges of AI in healthcare.

Individualization of computed tomography protocols for suspected pulmonary embolism: a national investigation of routines

Objective

Given the extensive use of computed tomography (CT) in radiation-sensitive patients such as pregnant and pediatric patients, and considering the importance of tailoring CT protocols to patient characteristics for both the radiation dose and image quality, this study was performed to investigate the extent to which individualization of CT protocols is practiced across Norway.

Methods

This cross-sectional study involved collection of CT protocols and administration of a mini-questionnaire to obtain additional information about how CT examinations are individualized. All public hospitals performing CT to detect pulmonary embolism were invited, and 41% participated.

Results

Tailoring a standard protocol to different patient groups was more common than using dedicated protocols. Most of the available radiation dose-reduction approaches were used. However, implementation of these strategies was not systematic. Children and pregnant patients were examined without using dedicated CT protocols or by using protocol adjustments focusing on radiation dose reduction in 30% and 39% of the hospitals, respectively.

Conclusion

Practice optimization is needed, especially the development of dedicated CT protocols or guidelines that tailor the existing protocol to pediatric and pregnant patients. Practice might benefit from a more systematic approach to individualization of CT examinations, such as inserting tailoring instructions into CT protocols.

Conceptual designs of conduction cooled MgB2 magnets for 1.5 and 3.0T full body MRI systems

Conceptual designs of 1.5 and 3.0 T full-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) magnets using conduction cooled MgB2 superconductor are presented. The sizes, locations, and number of turns in the eight coil bundles are determined using optimization methods that minimize the amount of superconducting wire and produce magnetic fields with an inhomogeneity of less than 10 ppm over a 45 cm diameter spherical volume. MgB2 superconducting wire is assessed in terms of the transport, thermal, and mechanical properties for these magnet designs. Careful calculations of the normal zone propagation velocity and minimum quench energies provide support for the necessity of active quench protection instead of passive protection for medium temperature superconductors such as MgB2. A new 'active' protection scheme for medium Tc based MRI magnets is presented and simulations demonstrate that the magnet can be protected. Recent progress on persistent joints for multifilamentary MgB2 wire is presented. Finite difference calculations of the quench propagation and temperature rise during a quench conclude that active intervention is needed to reduce the temperature rise in the coil bundles and prevent damage to the superconductor. Comprehensive multiphysics and multiscale analytical and finite element analysis of the mechanical stress and strain in the MgB2 wire and epoxy for these designs are presented for the first time. From mechanical and thermal analysis of our designs we conclude there would be no damage to such a magnet during the manufacturing or operating stages, and that the magnet would survive various quench scenarios. This comprehensive set of magnet design considerations and analyses demonstrate the overall viability of 1.5 and 3.0 T MgB2 magnet designs.

Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols

Protocol review is important to decrease the risk of patient injury and increase the consistency of CT image quality. A large volume of CT protocols makes manual review labor‐intensive, error‐prone, and costly. To address these challenges, we have developed a software system for automatically managing and monitoring CT protocols on a frequent basis. This article describes our experiences in the implementation and evaluation of this protocol monitoring system. In particular, we discuss various strategies for addressing each of the steps in our protocol‐monitoring workflow, which are: maintaining an accurate set of master protocols, retrieving protocols from the scanners, comparing scanner protocols to master protocols, reviewing flagged differences between the scanner and master protocols, and updating the scanner and/or master protocols. In our initial evaluation focusing only on abdomen and pelvis protocols, we detected 309 modified protocols in a 24‐week trial period. About one‐quarter of these modified protocols were determined to contain inappropriate (i.e., erroneous) protocol parameter modifications that needed to be corrected on the scanner. The most frequently affected parameter was the series description, which was inappropriately modified 47 times. Two inappropriate modifications were made to the tube current, which is particularly important to flag as this parameter impacts both radiation dose and image quality. The CT protocol changes detected in this work provide strong motivation for the use of an automated CT protocol quality control system to ensure protocol accuracy and consistency.

PACS number(s): 87.57.Q‐

Split-Bolus Portal Venous Phase Dual-Energy CT Urography: Protocol Design, Image Quality, and Dose Reduction

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the image quality of split-bolus portal venous phase urography and the potential reduction of radiation dose by using a second-generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DECT) scanner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DECT urography was performed in 84 patients. Unenhanced CT was performed 20 minutes after drinking 800 mL of water. The split-bolus protocol consisted of a sequence of injections, as follows: 200 mL of normal saline (2.0 mL/s), 50 mL of contrast medium (2.5 mL/s) at 0 second, 70 mL of contrast medium (2.5 mL/s) at 360 seconds, and a saline flush of 25 mL. The scan was started at 420 seconds. Virtual unenhanced images were reconstructed from contrast-enhanced images. The mean CT density and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the renal parenchyma, vessels, upper urinary tract, normal reference tissues, and tumors were measured for image quantitative analysis. Image quality and opacification of the collecting systems were rated by two radiologists using 3- or 4-point scales.

RESULTS

The SNR of all measured sites, except the renal pelvis, showed a statistically significant correlation (p < 0.001) between the true unenhanced and virtual unenhanced images. The overall sensitivity of stone detection was 87.5% (28/32) in virtual unenhanced images. Image quality of the renal parenchyma, arteries, and veins was excellent in 59.5%, 75.0%, and 97.6% of cases, respectively. Opacification of the intrarenal collecting systems, proximal, middle, and distal ureters, and bladder was complete in 92.9%, 83.9%, 78.6%, 77.4%, and 26.2% of patients, respectively. Omitting the unenhanced scan can reduce the mean radiation dose from 15.6 to 6.7 mSv.

CONCLUSION

Portal venous phase split-bolus DECT urography provides sufficient image quality with potential to reduce radiation exposure.

Establishment of diagnostic reference levels for CT trunk examinations in the western region of Saudi Arabia

Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are an important optimisation tool, which aid in identifying abnormally high dose levels. These are currently not available in Saudi Arabia, and this research aims to remedy this. CT dose data (DLP and CTDIvol) were collected for a minimum number of 10 adult patients of average size (60-80 kg) presenting for a range of CT examinations from public hospitals in the western region of Saudi Arabia. These include routine chest, high-resolution chest (HRCT), pulmonary angiography (CTPA), abdomen and pelvis (AP) and the combined chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP) CT examinations. Mean values for each site were calculated, and the 75th percentile of DLP and CTDIvol was used as a basis for DRLs. Data for 550 patients were collected from 14 hospitals over a 7-month period. The rounded third-quartile CTDIvol and DLP were 18 mGy and 630 mGy cm(-1) for chest CT, 20 mGy and 600mGy cm(-1) for HRCT, 18 mGy and 480 mGy cm(-1) for CTPA, 15 mGy and 800 mGy cm(-1) for AP, and 16 mGy and 1040 mGy cm(-1) for CAP, respectively. Regional DRLs have been proposed from this study. Dose variations across CT departments have identified an urgent need for optimisation to improve distribution of observed doses for CT examinations.

A cross-platform survey of CT image quality and dose from routine abdomen protocols and a method to systematically standardize image quality

Through this investigation we developed a methodology to evaluate and standardize CT image quality from routine abdomen protocols across different manufacturers and models. The influence of manufacturer-specific automated exposure control systems on image quality was directly assessed to standardize performance across a range of patient sizes. We evaluated 16 CT scanners across our health system, including Siemens, GE, and Toshiba models. Using each practice's routine abdomen protocol, we measured spatial resolution, image noise, and scanner radiation output (CTDIvol). Axial and in-plane spatial resolutions were assessed through slice sensitivity profile (SSP) and modulation transfer function (MTF) measurements, respectively. Image noise and CTDIvol values were obtained for three different phantom sizes. SSP measurements demonstrated a bimodal distribution in slice widths: an average of 6.2  ±  0.2 mm using GE's 'Plus' mode reconstruction setting and 5.0  ±  0.1 mm for all other scanners. MTF curves were similar for all scanners. Average spatial frequencies at 50%, 10%, and 2% MTF values were 3.24  ±  0.37, 6.20  ±  0.34, and 7.84  ±  0.70 lp cm(-1), respectively. For all phantom sizes, image noise and CTDIvol varied considerably: 6.5-13.3 HU (noise) and 4.8-13.3 mGy (CTDIvol) for the smallest phantom; 9.1-18.4 HU and 9.3-28.8 mGy for the medium phantom; and 7.8-23.4 HU and 16.0-48.1 mGy for the largest phantom. Using these measurements and benchmark SSP, MTF, and image noise targets, CT image quality can be standardized across a range of patient sizes.

CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept

This article explains a method for creating CT protocols for a wide range of patient body sizes and clinical indications, using detailed tube current information from a small set of commonly used protocols. Analytical expressions were created relating CT technical acquisition parameters which can be used to create new CT protocols on a given scanner or customize protocols from one scanner to another. Plots of mA as a function of patient size for specific anatomical regions were generated and used to identify the tube output needs for patients as a function of size for a single master protocol. Tube output data were obtained from the DICOM header of clinical images from our PACS and patient size was measured from CT localizer radiographs under IRB approval. This master protocol was then used to create 11 additional master protocols. The 12 master protocols were further combined to create 39 single and multiphase clinical protocols. Radiologist acceptance rate of exams scanned using the clinical protocols was monitored for 12,857 patients to analyze the effectiveness of the presented protocol management methods using a two‐tailed Fisher's exact test. A single routine adult abdominal protocol was used as the master protocol to create 11 additional master abdominal protocols of varying dose and beam energy. Situations in which the maximum tube current would have been exceeded are presented, and the trade‐offs between increasing the effective tube output via 1) decreasing pitch, 2) increasing the scan time, or 3) increasing the kV are discussed. Out of 12 master protocols customized across three different scanners, only one had a statistically significant acceptance rate that differed from the scanner it was customized from. The difference, however, was only 1% and was judged to be negligible. All other master protocols differed in acceptance rate insignificantly between scanners. The methodology described in this paper allows a small set of master protocols to be adapted among different clinical indications on a single scanner and among different CT scanners.

PACS number: 87.57.Q

On the same page--physicist and radiologist perspectives on protocol management and review

To sustain compliance with accreditation requirements of the ACR, Joint Commission, and state-specific statutes and regulatory requirements, a CT protocol review committee requires a structure for systematic analysis of protocols. Safe and reproducible practice of CT in a complex environment requires that physician supervision processes and protocols be precisely and clearly presented. This article discusses necessary components for data structure, and a description of an IT-based approach for protocol review based on experiences at 2 academic centers, 3 community hospitals, 1 cancer center, and 2 outpatient clinics.

Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review - from the perspective of a university hospital

The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience with the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 1.a: “CT Protocol Management and Review Practice Guideline”. Specifically, we will share how our institution's quality management system addresses the suggestions within the AAPM practice report. We feel this paper is needed as it was beyond the scope of the AAPM practice guideline to provide specific details on fulfilling individual guidelines. Our hope is that other institutions will be able to emulate some of our practices and that this article would encourage other types of centers (e.g., community hospitals) to share their methodology for approaching CT protocol optimization and quality control. Our institution had a functioning CT protocol optimization process, albeit informal, since we began using CT. Recently, we made our protocol development and validation process compliant with a number of the ISO 9001:2008 clauses and this required us to formalize the roles of the members of our CT protocol optimization team. We rely heavily on PACS‐based IT solutions for acquiring radiologist feedback on the performance of our CT protocols and the performance of our CT scanners in terms of dose (scanner output) and the function of the automatic tube current modulation. Specific details on our quality management system covering both quality control and ongoing optimization have been provided. The roles of each CT protocol team member have been defined, and the critical role that IT solutions provides for the management of files and the monitoring of CT protocols has been reviewed. In addition, the invaluable role management provides by being a champion for the project has been explained; lack of a project champion will mitigate the efforts of a CT protocol optimization team. Meeting the guidelines set forth in the AAPM practice guideline was not inherently difficult, but did, in our case, require the cooperation of radiologists, technologists, physicists, IT, administrative staff, and hospital management. Some of the IT solutions presented in this paper are novel and currently unique to our institution.

PACS number: 87.57.Q

Data-driven CT protocol review and management—experience from a large academic hospital

PURPOSE

Protocol review plays a critical role in CT quality assurance, but large numbers of protocols and inconsistent protocol names on scanners and in exam records make thorough protocol review formidable. In this investigation, we report on a data-driven cataloging process that can be used to assist in the reviewing and management of CT protocols.

METHODS

We collected lists of scanner protocols, as well as 18 months of recent exam records, for 10 clinical scanners. We developed computer algorithms to automatically deconstruct the protocol names on the scanner and in the exam records into core names and descriptive components. Based on the core names, we were able to group the scanner protocols into a much smaller set of "core protocols," and to easily link exam records with the scanner protocols. We calculated the percentage of usage for each core protocol, from which the most heavily used protocols were identified.

RESULTS

From the percentage-of-usage data, we found that, on average, 18, 33, and 49 core protocols per scanner covered 80%, 90%, and 95%, respectively, of all exams. These numbers are one order of magnitude smaller than the typical numbers of protocols that are loaded on a scanner (200-300, as reported in the literature). Duplicated, outdated, and rarely used protocols on the scanners were easily pinpointed in the cataloging process.

CONCLUSIONS

The data-driven cataloging process can facilitate the task of protocol review.

Capture and analysis of radiation dose reports for radiology

Radiographic imaging systems can produce records of exposure and dose parameters for each patient. A variety of file formats are in use including plain text, bit map images showing pictures of written text and radiation dose structured reports as text or extended markup language files. Whilst some of this information is available with image data on the hospital picture archive and communication system, access is restricted to individual patient records, thereby making it difficult to locate multiple records for the same scan protocol. This study considers the exposure records and dose reports from four modalities. Exposure records for mammography and general radiography are utilized for repeat analysis. Dose reports for fluoroscopy and computed tomography (CT) are utilized to study the distribution of patient doses for each protocol. Results for dosimetric quantities measured by General Radiography, Fluoroscopy and CT equipment are summarised and presented in the Appendix. Projection imaging uses the dose (in air) area product and derived quantities including the dose to the reference point as a measure of the air kerma reaching the skin, ignoring movement of the beam for fluoroscopy. CT uses the dose indices CTDIvol and dose length product as a measure of the dose per axial slice, and to the scanned volume. Suitable conversion factors are identified and used to estimate the effective dose to an average size patient (for CT and fluoroscopy) and the entrance skin dose for fluoroscopy.

Evaluation of gantry rotation overrun in axial CT scanning

The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a simple method to assess gantry rotation overrun in a single axial CT scanning. The exposure time in the axial scanning was measured at selected nominal rotation times (400, 700, and 1000 ms) using a solid‐state detector, the RTI's CT dose profiler (CTDP). CTDP was placed at the isocenter and the radiation dose rate signal (profile) was recorded. Subsequently, the full width of this profile was determined as the exposure time (Taxial). Next, CTDP was positioned on the inner cover of the gantry with a sheet of lead (1 mm thick) placed on top of the detector. Gantry rotation time (Thelical) was determined by the time between two successive radiation peaks during continuous helical scanning. The gantry overrun time (Toverrun) is, thus, determined as Taxial‐Thelical. The exposure times in the axial scanning, Taxial, obtained with CTDP for nominal rotation times of 400, 700, and 1000 ms were 409.5, 709.6, and 1008.7 ms, respectively. On the other hand, the measured gantry rotation times, Thelical, were 400.0, 700.3, and 999.8 ms, respectively. Therefore, the overruns were 9.5, 9.3, and 8.9 ms for nominal rotation times of 400, 700, and 1000 ms, respectively. The evaluation of overrun in axial scanning can be accomplished with the measurements of both the exposure time in axial scanning and the gantry rotation time. It is also noteworthy that in this context, overrun implies overexposure in axial scanning, which is still used, particularly, in head CT examination.

PACS number: 87.57.Q‐

Does iterative reconstruction lower CT radiation dose: evaluation of 15,000 examinations

Purpose

Evaluation of 15,000 computed tomography (CT) examinations to investigate if iterative reconstruction (IR) reduces sustainably radiation exposure.

Method and Materials

Information from 15,000 CT examinations was collected, including all aspects of the exams such as scan parameter, patient information, and reconstruction instructions. The examinations were acquired between January 2010 and December 2012, while after 15 months a first generation IR algorithm was installed. To collect the necessary information from PACS, RIS, MPPS and structured reports a Dose Monitoring System was developed. To harvest all possible information an optical character recognition system was integrated, for example to collect information from the screenshot CT-dose report. The tool transfers all data to a database for further processing such as the calculation of effective dose and organ doses. To evaluate if IR provides a sustainable dose reduction, the effective dose values were statistically analyzed with respect to protocol type, diagnostic indication, and patient population.

Results

IR has the potential to reduce radiation dose significantly. Before clinical introduction of IR the average effective dose was 10.1±7.8mSv and with IR 8.9±7.1mSv (p*=0.01). Especially in CTA, with the possibility to use kV reduction protocols, such as in aortic CTAs (before IR: average14.2±7.8mSv; median11.4mSv /with IR:average9.9±7.4mSv; median7.4mSv), or pulmonary CTAs (before IR: average9.7±6.2mSV; median7.7mSv /with IR: average6.4±4.7mSv; median4.8mSv) the dose reduction effect is significant(p*=0.01). On the contrary for unenhanced low-dose scans of the cranial (for example sinuses) the reduction is not significant (before IR:average6.6±5.8mSv; median3.9mSv/with IR:average6.0±3.1mSV; median3.2mSv).

Conclusion

The dose aspect remains a priority in CT research. Iterative reconstruction algorithms reduce sustainably and significantly radiation dose in the clinical routine. Our results illustrate that not only in studies with a limited number of patients but also in the clinical routine, IRs provide long-term dose saving.

Medical Physics Practice Guidelines - the AAPM's minimum practice recommendations for medical physicists

The AAPM has long advocated a consistent level of medical physics practice, and has published many recommendations and position statements toward that goal, such as Science Council Task Group reports related to calibration and quality assurance, Education Council and Professional Council Task Group reports related to education, training, and peer review, and Board-approved Position Statements related to the Scope of Practice, physicist qualifications, and other aspects of medical physics practice. Despite these concerted and enduring efforts, the profession does not have clear and concise statements of the acceptable practice guidelines for routine clinical medical physics. As accreditation of clinical practices becomes more common, Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPGs) will be crucial to ensuring a consistent benchmark for accreditation programs. To this end, the AAPM has recently endorsed the development of MPPGs, which may be generated in collaboration with other professional societies. The MPPGs are intended to be freely available to the general public. Accrediting organizations, regulatory agencies, and legislators will be encouraged to reference these MPPGs when defining their respective requirements. MPPGs are intended to provide the medical community with a clear description of the minimum level of medical physics support that the AAPM would consider prudent in clinical practice settings. Support includes, but is not limited to, staffing, equipment, machine access, and training. These MPPGs are not designed to replace extensive Task Group reports or review articles, but rather to describe the recommended minimum level of medical physics support for specific clinical services. This article has described the purpose, scope, and process for the development of MPPGs.