Estimating size specific dose estimate from computed tomography radiograph localizer with radiation risk assessment.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying radiation burden is necessary for optimizing imaging protocols. The normalized dose coefficient (NDC) is determined from the water-equivalent diameter (WED) and is used to scale the CTDIvol based on body habitus to determine the size specific dose estimate (SSDE). In this study we determine the SSDE prior to the CT scan and how sensitive the SSDE from WED is to the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) from BEIR VII. METHOD: For calibration, phantom images are used to relate the mean pixel values along a profile ( PPV ¯ $\overline {{\rm{PPV}}} $ ) of the CT localizer to the water-equivalent area (AW ) of the CT axial scan at the same z-location. Images of the CTDIvol phantoms (32 cm, 16 cm, and ∼1 cm) and ACR phantom (Gammex 464) were acquired on four scanners. The relationship between the AW and PPV ¯ $\overline {{\rm{PPV}}} $ was used to calculate the WED from the CT localizer for patient scans. A total of 790 CT examinations of the chest and abdominopelvic regions were used in this study. The effective diameter (ED) was calculated from the CT localizer. The LAR was calculated based on the patient chest and abdomen using the National Cancer Institute Dosimetry System for Computed Tomography (NCICT). The radiation sensitivity index (RSI) and risk differentiability index (RDI) were calculated for SSDE and CTDIvol. RESULTS: The WED from CT localizers and CT axials scans show good correlation (R2  = 0.96) with the maximum percentage difference being 13.45%. The NDC from WED correlates poorly with LAR for lungs (R2  = 0.18) and stomach (R2  = 0.19), however that is the best correlation. CONCLUSION: The SSDE can be determined within 20% as recommended by the report of AAPM TG 220. The CTDIvol and SSDE are not good surrogates for radiation risk, however the sensitivity for SSDE improves when using WED instead of ED.

Fetal Dose from PET and CT in Pregnant Patients.

When pregnancy is discovered during or after a diagnostic examination, the physician or the patient may request an estimate of the radiation dose received by the fetus as per guidelines and standard operating procedures. This study provided the imaging community with dose estimates to the fetus from PET/CT with protocols that are adapted to University of Michigan low-dose protocols for patients known to be pregnant. Methods: There were 9 patients analyzed with data for the first, second, and third trimesters, the availability of which is quite rare. These images were used to calculate the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) from the CT scan portion and the SUV and 18F-FDG uptake dose from the PET scan portion using the MIRD formulation. The fetal dose estimates were tested for correlation with each of the following independent measures: gestational age, fetal volume, average water-equivalent diameter of the patient along the length of the fetus, SSDE, SUV, and percentage of dose from 18F-FDG. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess the partial correlation of each variable. To our knowledge, this was the first study to determine fetal doses from CT and PET images. Results: Fetal self-doses from 18F for the first, second, and third trimesters were 2.18 mGy (single data point), 0.74-1.82 mGy, and 0.017-0.0017 mGy, respectively. The combined SSDE and fetal self-dose ranged from 1.2 to 8.2 mGy. These types of images from pregnant patients are rare. Conclusion: Our data indicate that the fetal radiation exposure from 18F-FDG PET and CT performed, when medically necessary, on pregnant women with cancer is low. All efforts should be made to minimize fetal radiation exposure by modifying the protocol.

Neck CT angiography examinations for pediatric oropharyngeal trauma: diagnostic yield and proposal of a new targeted technique.

BACKGROUND: Neck computed tomography (CT) angiography is commonly ordered for pediatric patients with soft palate trauma to exclude vascular injury. Debate exists regarding what type of imaging is indicated in this setting, particularly amid growing concern that standard neck CT angiography results in considerable radiation exposure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic yield and estimated dose reduction of a novel targeted protocol extending from the skull base to the hyoid bone to evaluate pediatric oropharyngeal trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective imaging and medical chart review was performed of patients for whom a neck CT angiography was obtained for an indication of oropharyngeal trauma between 2008 and 2018. Effective dose and size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs) were estimated for standard and targeted neck CT angiography protocols with calculation of percent dose reduction of the targeted exams. RESULTS: Ninety-eight CT angiography examinations were reviewed. No cases were positive for neurological or major vessel injury; one case was positive for small vessel extravasation. Clinically significant nonvascular findings included phlegmonous change, retained foreign body, retropharyngeal/mediastinal air and pterygoid process fracture. With the exception of mediastinal air, all findings would have been included in the targeted protocol. Effective dose and SSDE were calculated for all cases where CTDIvol (volume CT dose index) had been reported (n=72). There was a statistically significant reduction in dose for the targeted protocol with an effective dose decrease of 69.7%±10.5% (P=0.009) and SSDE decrease of 53.9%±14.7% (P=0.01). Limiting ionizing radiation to the lung apices, esophagus and thyroid gland provided the greatest dose savings. CONCLUSION: Based on low diagnostic yield and high radiation dose associated with standard neck CT angiography for evaluating oropharyngeal trauma, a targeted protocol is recommended, resulting in significantly less dose to the neck, while preserving diagnostic yield.

Technical Note: Model-based magnification/minification correction of patient size surrogates extracted from CT localizers.

PURPOSE: Patient size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) calculations require knowledge of a patient's size. Errors in patient size propagate through SSDE calculations. AAPM Reports 204 and 220 recommend that a magnification correction be applied to patient size surrogates extracted from CT localizer radiographs. This technical note presents a novel approach for such a magnification correction. METHODS: In our model-based magnification correction, we assume that the patient's cross sections are elliptical with minor and major axes defined using the anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) patient dimensions. We parameterize the problem by modeling a line emanating from the source, grazing the patient (i.e., the ellipse), and then terminating onto the detector plane. We model tangent lines on each side of the ellipse on both the LAT and AP CT localizer radiographs. We also account for vertical mispositioning with table offset. We compared our correction model to the actual AP and LAT dimensions to the vendor-supplied CT localizer images that only received a geometric magnification correction, and to other methods described in the literature. We compare our model to the others using direct size to size comparisons as well as SSDE conversion factor. RESULTS: Our model-based method provides consistent accurate results (less than 1.8% error for absolute size and 1.2% error for SSDE for all measurement conditions) for all positions and patient sizes. Existing literature-based methods had maximum errors for absolute size and SSDE of 7.5% and 5.2%, and for the vendor, they were 30.9% and 17.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We presented a new model-based geometric size correction method that outperforms a simple geometric correction as well as other methods presented in the literature. By modeling the patient cross section and beam geometry using information all derived from the DICOM header and CT localizer views, we demonstrated SSDE correction factor improvements from 17.0% (vendor correction) to 1.2% (model base). These changes correspond directly into changes in SSDE itself and also represent clinically realistic patient sizes and mispositioning amounts.