The impact of body mass index on patient radiation dose in general radiography.

The aim of the present study was to determine the influence of the body mass index (BMI) on the dose area product (DAP) and effective dose (ED) in overweight and obese patients. We also wanted to determine the typical dose values as well as suggest adjustments to clinical practice for overweight and obese patients. In this study we considered 597 patients referred for imaging of the chest in posteroanterior and lateral projection, the lumbar spine in anteroposterior (AP) and lateral projection, the pelvis, the knee in AP and lateral projection, and the shoulder in AP projection. For each examination, the image field size, tube voltage, mAs product, source-to-image receptor distance and values of DAP were collected. Based on their BMI, the patients were divided into three groups (normal weight, overweight and obese). At the end, PCXMC 2.0 software was used to calculate the ED. The study showed a statistically significant DAP and ED increase in overweight and obese patients by 28.9% up to 275.4% in the case of DAP and an increase in ED from 11.0% to 241.9% in all mentioned examinations except knee and shoulder imaging. Typical DAP values ranged from 2.2 to 54.8µGym2for normal-weight patients, from 2.2 to 87.6µGym2for overweight patients, and from 2.2 to 172.5µGym2for obese patients. Spearman's correlation coefficient revealed very weak to very strong correlations when comparing BMI and DAP, as well as when comparing BMI and ED. A strong and very strong correlation was found in the case of examinations of the torso (except for the comparison of BMI and ED in the case of lateral lumbar spine projection).

Comparison of treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup in intracranial MRI radiotherapy simulation.

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the quality of images resulting from magnetic resonance imaging of patients who underwent intracranial MRI simulation using two different setups (treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup). Due to a larger number of channels and lack of mask immobilization in the standard diagnostic setup, we would like to evaluate whether this is an appropriate technique for MRI treatment planning. METHODS: In total, 70 patients who underwent MR imaging of the brain at 1.5T were included in the study (48 for 6­channel flex coil, 22 for 24-channel HNU face bill coil). Contrast-enhanced 3D T1w and T2 FLAIR images were acquired. Images were subjectively compared for artifact appearance and general image quality by three radiographers. Objective comparison of contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-noise ratio was also performed. RESULTS: FLAIR and contrast-enhanced 3D T1w images showed various artifacts, such as susceptibility and movement artifacts. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the evaluation of movement artifacts between two coils and two different immobilization methods. There were also no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the 6­channel flex coil and 24-channel HNU face bill coil regarding qualitative general image quality and objective measures. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences between the occurrence of movement artifacts, overall image quality, and objective image quality in treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup. Based on this result, we can conclude that a standard diagnostic setup is also applicable in intracranial MRI treatment planning with no loss to image quality. Registration of the imaging plans was not performed in this study; therefore, it might still be necessary to perform measurements of tumor delineation matching and geometrical accuracy acceptance in our institution.