Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Radiation Dose Comparison according to Different Organ Characteristics at Same Scan Parameters Using CareDose 4D: An Adult and Pediatric Phantom Evaluation

CareDose 4D 사용 시 동일한 스캔조건에서 조직기반설정을 다르게 적용함에 따른 선량 비교: 성인과 소아팬텀 연구

  • Kong, Hyo-Geum (Department of Radiology, Kangwon National University Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Ki-Baek (Department of Radiology, Seoul Asan Medical Center)
  • 공효금 (강원대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 이기백 (서울아산병원 영상의학팀)
  • Received : 2019.07.31
  • Accepted : 2019.08.20
  • Published : 2019.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

CareDose 4D which is the Siemens's Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) can adjust the level of radiation dose distribution which is based on organ characteristic unlike other manufacturer's AEC. Currently, a wide scan range containing different organs is sometimes examined at once (defined as one scan). The purpose of this study was to figure out which organ characteristic option is suitable when one scan method is utilized. Two types of anthropomorphic phantoms were scanned in the same range which were from frontal bone to carina level according to three different organ characteristics such as Thorax, Abdomen, and Neck. All scans and image reconstruction parameters were equally applied and radiation dose were compared. Radiation dose with Thorax organ characteristic was lower than that with Neck. Also, that with Abdomen oran characteristic was lower than Thorax. There were significant differences in radiation dose according to different organ characteristics at the same parameters (P<0.05). Usage of Neck organ characteristic had a result of the highest radiation dose to all phantom. On the other hand, utilization of Abdomen organ characteristic showed the lowest radiation dose. As a result, it is desirable to set appropriate organ characteristic according to examined body part when you checkup patients. Also, when you implement one scan method, selection of Abdomen-based organ characteristic has reduced more radiation dose compared with two different organ characteristic.

Keywords

References

  1. Lee MK, Lim CH. Survey of CT Practice and Collective Effective Dose Estimation. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2010;33(3):231-8.
  2. Choi MH, Jang JS, Lee KB. A Study on the Indirect Radiation Exposure of the Medical Personnel Who is Responsible for Patient Safety in CT Examination. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2019;42(2):105-11. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2019.42.2.105
  3. Lee KB, Lee WH, Lee JH, Lee BR, Oh GB. Dose reduction and image quality assessment in MDCT using AEC (D-DOM & Z-DOM) and in-plane bismuth shielding. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;141(2):162-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq159
  4. Soderberg M, Gunnarsson M. Automatic exposure control in computed tomography--an evaluation of systems from different manufacturers. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(6):625-34. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841851003698206
  5. Park GJ, Kim YO, Yeo SG, Dae CM, Min KH. Automatic Exposure Control Systems with Inappropriate Topogram : A Phantom study in Chest CT on Radiation dose and Image quality between different manufactures. Journal of Korean Society of Computed Tomographic Technology. 2011;13(2):227-38.
  6. Nguyen D, Platon A, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Becker CD, Poletti PA. Evaluation of a Single-Pass Continuous Whole-Body 16-MDCT Protocol for Patients with Polytrauma. Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(1):3-10. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3702
  7. Hauser H, Bohndorf K. Radiologic emergency management in multiple trauma cases. Radiologe. 1998; 38(8):637-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001170050404
  8. Philipp MO, Kubin K, Hormann M, Metz VM. Radiological emergency room management with emphasis on multidetector-row CT. Eur J Radiol. 2003;48(1):2-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00206-7
  9. Mazumdar A, Siegel MJ, Narra V, Luchtman-Jones L. Whole-Body Fast Inversion Recovery MR Imaging of Small Cell Neoplasms in Pediatric Patients: A Pilot Study. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(5):1261-6. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791261
  10. Marin D, Nelson RC, Rubin GD, Schindera ST. Body CT: technical advances for improving safety. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):33-41. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6755
  11. Lee KB, Kim JH. The Effect of Radiation Dose and Image Quality using AEC(Automatic Exposure Control) with Inappropriate Scout images : A Chest Phantom Experiment with Two Different AEC Modes. Journal of Korean Society of Computed Tomographic Technology. 2016;18(1):47-56.
  12. Wood TJ, Moore CS, Stephens A, Saunderson JR, Beavis AW. A practical method to standardise and optimise the Philips DoseRight 2.0 CT automatic exposure control system. J Radiol Prot. 2015;35(3):495-506. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/35/3/495
  13. Russell MT, Fink JR, Rebeles F, Kanal K, Ramos M, Anzai Y. Balancing radiation dose and image quality: clinical applications of neck volume CT. Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(4):727-31. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0891
  14. McCollough CH. Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? Radiology. 2005;237(3):755-6. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373051151
  15. Lee KB, Goo HW. Quantitative Image Quality and Histogram-Based Evaluations of an Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm at Low-to-Ultralow Radiation Dose Levels: A Phantom Study in Chest CT. Korean J Radiol. 2018;19(1):119-29. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.1.119
  16. Leipsic J, Nguyen G, Brown J, Sin D, Mayo JR. A prospective evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(5):1095-9. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.4050
  17. Goo HW. CT radiation dose optimization and estimation:an update for radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.1.1
  18. Baker ME, Dong F, Primak A, Obuchowski NA, Einstein D, Gandhi N, et al. Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(1):8-18. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7421
  19. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, Licato PE, Do S, Pien HH, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2010;257(2):373-83. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10092212
  20. Wang L, Gong S, Yang J, Zhou J, Xiao J, Gu JH, et al. CARE Dose 4D combined with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction improved the image quality and reduced the radiation dose in low dose CT of the small intestine. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(1):293-307. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12502