nach oben

Radiological Physics and Technology

Erschienen in:

29.08.2019

A comparative study of radiation doses between phantom and patients via CT angiography of the intra-/extra-cranial, pulmonary, and abdominal/pelvic arteries

verfasst von: M. K. A. Karim, A. Sabarudin, N. A. Muhammad, K. H. Ng

Erschienen in: Radiological Physics and Technology | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate effective dose and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) of computed tomography angiography (CTA) examination using an anthropomorphic phantom. We included three CTA examination protocols to evaluate the intra- and extra-cranial arteries, pulmonary artery (CTPA), and abdominal vessels. Patient SSDEs were measured retrospectively to estimate patient dose, relative to the bodyweight of the patient and volume CT dose index (CTDI_vol). Our findings revealed that the highest dose was absorbed by the left lobe of the thyroid gland during intra-/extra-cranial CTA and CTPA, that is, 14.11 ± 0.24 mGy and 16.20 ± 3.95 mGy, respectively. However, the highest absorbed dose in abdominal/pelvic CTA was the gonads (8.98 ± 0.30 mGy), while other radiosensitive organs in intra- and extra-cranial CTA, CTPA, and abdominal/pelvic CTA did not demonstrate significant differences between organs/structures with p value 0.88, 0.11, and 0.54, respectively. The estimated effective dose in intra-/extra-cranial CTA was lower in patients (0.80 ± 0.60 mSv) than in the phantom (0.83 mSv), but it was the opposite for CTPA, with the effective dose being higher in patients (7.54 ± 3.09 mSv) than in the phantom (6.68 mSv). Similar to the effective dose, only CTPA SSDEs were significantly higher in men than in women (19.74 ± 4.79 mGy versus 7.9 mGy). Effective dose and SSDE are clinically relevant parameters that can help estimate a more accurate patient dose based on a patient’s size.

Jayakrishnan VK, White PM, Aitken D, Crane P, McMahon AD, Teasdale EM. Subtraction helical CT angiography of intra- and extracranial vessels: technical considerations and preliminary experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24:451–5.PubMedPubMedCentral

Schueller-Weidekamm C, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M. CT angiography of pulmonary arteries to detect pulmonary embolism: improvement of vascular enhancement with low kilovoltage settings. Radiology. 2006;241:899–907. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2413040128.CrossRefPubMed

Sabarudin A, Siong TW, Chin AW, Hoong NK, Karim MKA. A comparison study of radiation effective dose in ECG-gated coronary CT angiography and calcium scoring examinations performed with a dual-source CT scanner. Sci Rep. 2019;9:4374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40758-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bombiński P, Warchoł S, Brzewski M, Biejat A, Dudek-Warchoł T, Krzemień G, et al. Lower-dose CT urography (CTU) with iterative reconstruction technique in children—initial experience and examination protocol. Pol J Radiol. 2014;79:137–44. https://doi.org/10.12659/PJR.890729.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bischoff B, Hein F, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Martinoff S, Schömig A, et al. Impact of a reduced tube voltage on CT angiography and radiation dose: results of the PROTECTION I study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:940–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.02.015.CrossRefPubMed

Boone JM, Brink JA, Edyvean S, Huda W, Leitz W, McCollough CH, et al. Radiation dose and image-quality assessment in computed tomography. J ICRU. 2012;12:9–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/ndt006.CrossRef

Karim MKA, Hashim S, Bradley DA, Bahruddin NA, Ang WC, Salehhon N. Assessment of knowledge and awareness among radiology personnel regarding current computed tomography technology and radiation dose. J Phys Conf Ser. 2016;694:012031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/694/1/012031.CrossRef

Karim MKA, Hashim S, Sabarudin A, Bradley DA, Bahruddin NA. Evaluating organ dose and radiation risk of routine CT examinations in Johor Malaysia. Sains Malays. 2016;45:567–73.

Brenner DJ. Minimising medically unwarranted computed tomography scans. Ann ICRP. 2012;41:161–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2012.06.004.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Rehani MM, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Al-Naemi HM, Al-Suwaidi JS, El-Nachef L, Khosravi HR, et al. Radiation protection of patients in diagnostic and interventional radiology in Asian countries: impact of an IAEA project. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:e982–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.06.019.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kalender WA, Buchenau S, Deak P, Kellermeier M, Langner O, van Straten M, et al. Technical approaches to the optimisation of CT. Phys Med. 2008;24:71–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2008.01.012.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hashim S, Karim MKA, Bakar KA, Sabarudin A, Chin AW, Saripan MI, et al. Evaluation of organ doses and specific k effective dose of 64-slice CT thorax examination using an adult anthropomorphic phantom. Radiat Phys Chem. 2016;126:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2016.05.004.CrossRef

13.

Musa Y, Hashim S, Khalis Abdul Karim M. Direct and indirect entrance surface dose measurement in X-ray diagnostics using nanoDot OSL dosimeters. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1248:012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1248/1/012014.CrossRef

14.

Karim MKA, Rahim NA, Matsubara K, Hashim S, Mhareb MHA, Musa Y. The effectiveness of bismuth breast shielding with protocol optimization in CT Thorax examination. J Xray Sci Technol. 2019;27:139–47. https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-180397.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ma C-M, Seuntjens JP. Mass-energy absorption coefficient and backscatter factor ratios for kilovoltage X-ray beams. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:131–43.CrossRefPubMed

16.

ICRP. Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP publication 60. ICRP Publication 119. Ann ICRP. 2012;41(Suppl.).

17.

Huda W, Magill D, He W. CT effective dose per dose length product using ICRP 103 weighting factors. Med Phys. 2011;38:1261. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544350.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Huda W. Computing patient specific effective doses and radiation risks in CT. Phys Med. 2012;28:333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.06.008.CrossRef

19.

Pourjabbar S, Singh S, Padole A, Saini A, Blake MA, Kalra MK. Size-specific dose estimates: localizer or transverse abdominal computed tomography images? World J Radiol. 2014;6:210–7. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i5.210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Commission E. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR 16262 EN. 1997.

21.

Karim MKA, Hashim S, Bradley DA, Bakar KA, Haron MR, Kayun Z. Radiation doses from computed tomography practice in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Radiat Phys Chem. 2016;121:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.12.020.CrossRef

22.

Laqmani A, Regier M, Veldhoen S, Backhaus A, Wassenberg F, Sehner S, et al. Improved image quality and low radiation dose with hybrid iterative reconstruction with 80 kV CT pulmonary angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1962–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.06.016.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Patel R, Blake GM, Fogelman I. Radiation dose to the patient and operator from a peripheral dual X-ray absorptiometry system. J Clin Densitom. 1999;2:397–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1094-6950(06)60405-8.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Schoepf UJ, Costello P. CT angiography for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: state of the art. Radiology. 2004;230:329–37. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2302021489.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Cao JX, Wang YM, Lu JG, Zhang Y, Wang P, Yang C. Radiation and contrast agent doses reductions by using 80-kV tube voltage in coronary computed tomographic angiography: a comparative study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:309–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.06.032.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Sabarudin A, Mustafa Z, Nassir KM, Hamid HA, Sun Z. Radiation dose reduction in thoracic and abdomen–pelvic CT using tube current modulation: a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:319–28.CrossRef

Titel: A comparative study of radiation doses between phantom and patients via CT angiography of the intra-/extra-cranial, pulmonary, and abdominal/pelvic arteries
verfasst von: M. K. A. Karim
A. Sabarudin
N. A. Muhammad
K. H. Ng
Publikationsdatum: 29.08.2019
Verlag: Springer Singapore
Erschienen in: Radiological Physics and Technology / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1865-0333
Elektronische ISSN: 1865-0341
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-019-00532-8

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

A comparative study of radiation doses between phantom and patients via CT angiography of the intra-/extra-cranial, pulmonary, and abdominal/pelvic arteries

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

A mask method to assess the uniformity of fat suppression in phantom studies

Improvement of the robustness to set up error by a virtual bolus in total scalp irradiation with Helical TomoTherapy

Technical note: improved positioning protocol for patient setup accuracy in conventional radiotherapy for lung cancer

Hendee’s physics of medical imaging, fifth edition, by Ehsan Samei and Donald J. Peck

Evaluation of scattered radiation from fluoroscopy using small OSL dosimeters

Angular dependence of shielding effect of radiation protective eyewear for radiation protection of crystalline lens

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Update Radiologie