» Articles » PMID: 20095278

Reducing Radiation Dose to Selected Organs by Selecting the Tube Start Angle in MDCT Helical Scans: a Monte Carlo Based Study

Overview
Journal Med Phys
Specialty Biophysics
Date 2010 Jan 26
PMID 20095278
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Previous work has demonstrated that there are significant dose variations with a sinusoidal pattern on the peripheral of a CTDI 32 cm phantom or on the surface of an anthropomorphic phantom when helical CT scanning is performed, resulting in the creation of "hot" spots or "cold" spots. The purpose of this work was to perform preliminary investigations into the feasibility of exploiting these variations to reduce dose to selected radiosensitive organs solely by varying the tube start angle in CT scans.

Methods: Radiation dose to several radiosensitive organs (including breasts, thyroid, uterus, gonads, and eye lenses) resulting from MDCT scans were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods on voxelized patient models, including GSF's Baby, Child, and Irene. Dose to fetus was also estimated using four pregnant female models based on CT images of the pregnant patients. Whole-body scans were simulated using 120 kVp, 300 mAs, both 28.8 and 40 mm nominal collimations, and pitch values of 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 under a wide range of start angles (0 degree-340 degrees in 20 degrees increments). The relationship between tube start angle and organ dose was examined for each organ, and the potential dose reduction was calculated.

Results: Some organs exhibit a strong dose variation, depending on the tube start angle. For small peripheral organs (e.g., the eye lenses of the Baby phantom at pitch 1.5 with 40 mm collimation), the minimum dose can be 41% lower than the maximum dose, depending on the tube start angle. In general, larger dose reductions occur for smaller peripheral organs in smaller patients when wider collimation is used. Pitch 1.5 and pitch 0.75 have different mechanisms of dose reduction. For pitch 1.5 scans, the dose is usually lowest when the tube start angle is such that the x-ray tube is posterior to the patient when it passes the longitudinal location of the organ. For pitch 0.75 scans, the dose is lowest when the tube start angle is such that the x-ray tube is anterior to the patient when it passes the longitudinal location of the organ.

Conclusions: Helical MDCT scanning at pitch 1.5 and pitch 0.75 results in "cold spots" and "hot spots" that are created both at surface and in-depth locations within patients. For organs that have a relatively small longitudinal extent, dose can vary considerably with different start angles. While current MDCT systems do not provide the user with the ability to control the tube start angle, these results indicate that in these specific situations (pitch 1.5 or pitch 0.75, small organs and especially small patients), there could be significant dose savings to organs if that functionality would be provided.

Citing Articles

A real-time Monte Carlo tool for individualized dose estimations in clinical CT.

Sharma S, Kapadia A, Fu W, Abadi E, Segars W, Samei E Phys Med Biol. 2019; 64(21):215020.

PMID: 31539892 PMC: 7050822. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab467f.


A fast, linear Boltzmann transport equation solver for computed tomography dose calculation (Acuros CTD).

Wang A, Maslowski A, Wareing T, Star-Lack J, Schmidt T Med Phys. 2018; 46(2):925-933.

PMID: 30471131 PMC: 6367051. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13305.


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

Khatonabadi M, Zhang D, Mathieu K, Kim H, Lu P, Cody D Med Phys. 2012; 39(8):5212-28.

PMID: 22894446 PMC: 3422360. DOI: 10.1118/1.4736807.


Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part II. Application to patients.

Li X, Samei E, Segars W, Sturgeon G, Colsher J, Toncheva G Med Phys. 2011; 38(1):408-19.

PMID: 21361209 PMC: 3021563. DOI: 10.1118/1.3515864.


Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part I. development and validation of a Monte Carlo program.

Li X, Samei E, Segars W, Sturgeon G, Colsher J, Toncheva G Med Phys. 2011; 38(1):397-407.

PMID: 21361208 PMC: 3021562. DOI: 10.1118/1.3515839.

References
1.
Turner A, Zhang D, Kim H, DeMarco J, Cagnon C, Angel E . A method to generate equivalent energy spectra and filtration models based on measurement for multidetector CT Monte Carlo dosimetry simulations. Med Phys. 2009; 36(6):2154-64. PMC: 2754941. DOI: 10.1118/1.3117683. View

2.
Jarry G, DeMarco J, Beifuss U, Cagnon C, McNitt-Gray M . A Monte Carlo-based method to estimate radiation dose from spiral CT: from phantom testing to patient-specific models. Phys Med Biol. 2003; 48(16):2645-63. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/48/16/306. View

3.
Zanki M, Fill U, Petoussi-Henss N, Regulla D . Organ dose conversion coefficients for external photon irradiation of male and female voxel models. Phys Med Biol. 2002; 47(14):2367-85. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/47/14/301. View

4.
Hall E, Brenner D . Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol. 2008; 81(965):362-78. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/01948454. View

5.
Brenner D, Elliston C . Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology. 2004; 232(3):735-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2323031095. View