Cargando…
A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods
BACKGROUND: Computed Tomography (CT) contributes up to 50% of the medical exposure to the United States population. Children are considered to be at higher risk of developing radiation-induced tumors due to the young age of exposure and increased tissue radiosensitivity. Organ dose estimation is ess...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0199-3 |
_version_ | 1783232071731249152 |
---|---|
author | Gao, Yiming Quinn, Brian Mahmood, Usman Long, Daniel Erdi, Yusuf St. Germain, Jean Pandit-Taskar, Neeta Xu, X. George Bolch, Wesley E. Dauer, Lawrence T. |
author_facet | Gao, Yiming Quinn, Brian Mahmood, Usman Long, Daniel Erdi, Yusuf St. Germain, Jean Pandit-Taskar, Neeta Xu, X. George Bolch, Wesley E. Dauer, Lawrence T. |
author_sort | Gao, Yiming |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Computed Tomography (CT) contributes up to 50% of the medical exposure to the United States population. Children are considered to be at higher risk of developing radiation-induced tumors due to the young age of exposure and increased tissue radiosensitivity. Organ dose estimation is essential for pediatric and adult patient cancer risk assessment. The objective of this study is to validate the VirtualDose software in comparison to currently available software and methods for pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation. METHODS: Five age groups of pediatric patients and adult patients were simulated by three organ dose estimators. Head, chest, abdomen-pelvis, and chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scans were simulated, and doses to organs both inside and outside the scan range were compared. For adults, VirtualDose was compared against ImPACT and CT-Expo. For pediatric patients, VirtualDose was compared to CT-Expo and compared to size-based methods from literature. Pediatric to adult effective dose ratios were also calculated with VirtualDose, and were compared with the ranges of effective dose ratios provided in ImPACT. RESULTS: In-field organs see less than 60% difference in dose between dose estimators. For organs outside scan range or distributed organs, a five times’ difference can occur. VirtualDose agrees with the size-based methods within 20% difference for the organs investigated. Between VirtualDose and ImPACT, the pediatric to adult ratios for effective dose are compared, and less than 21% difference is observed for chest scan while more than 40% difference is observed for head-neck scan and abdomen-pelvis scan. For pediatric patients, 2 cm scan range change can lead to a five times dose difference in partially scanned organs. CONCLUSIONS: VirtualDose is validated against CT-Expo and ImPACT with relatively small discrepancies in dose for organs inside scan range, while large discrepancies in dose are observed for organs outside scan range. Patient-specific organ dose estimation is possible using the size-based methods, and VirtualDose agrees with size-based method for the organs investigated. Careful range selection for CT protocols is necessary for organ dose optimization for pediatric and adult patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5406971 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54069712017-04-27 A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods Gao, Yiming Quinn, Brian Mahmood, Usman Long, Daniel Erdi, Yusuf St. Germain, Jean Pandit-Taskar, Neeta Xu, X. George Bolch, Wesley E. Dauer, Lawrence T. BMC Med Imaging Research Article BACKGROUND: Computed Tomography (CT) contributes up to 50% of the medical exposure to the United States population. Children are considered to be at higher risk of developing radiation-induced tumors due to the young age of exposure and increased tissue radiosensitivity. Organ dose estimation is essential for pediatric and adult patient cancer risk assessment. The objective of this study is to validate the VirtualDose software in comparison to currently available software and methods for pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation. METHODS: Five age groups of pediatric patients and adult patients were simulated by three organ dose estimators. Head, chest, abdomen-pelvis, and chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scans were simulated, and doses to organs both inside and outside the scan range were compared. For adults, VirtualDose was compared against ImPACT and CT-Expo. For pediatric patients, VirtualDose was compared to CT-Expo and compared to size-based methods from literature. Pediatric to adult effective dose ratios were also calculated with VirtualDose, and were compared with the ranges of effective dose ratios provided in ImPACT. RESULTS: In-field organs see less than 60% difference in dose between dose estimators. For organs outside scan range or distributed organs, a five times’ difference can occur. VirtualDose agrees with the size-based methods within 20% difference for the organs investigated. Between VirtualDose and ImPACT, the pediatric to adult ratios for effective dose are compared, and less than 21% difference is observed for chest scan while more than 40% difference is observed for head-neck scan and abdomen-pelvis scan. For pediatric patients, 2 cm scan range change can lead to a five times dose difference in partially scanned organs. CONCLUSIONS: VirtualDose is validated against CT-Expo and ImPACT with relatively small discrepancies in dose for organs inside scan range, while large discrepancies in dose are observed for organs outside scan range. Patient-specific organ dose estimation is possible using the size-based methods, and VirtualDose agrees with size-based method for the organs investigated. Careful range selection for CT protocols is necessary for organ dose optimization for pediatric and adult patients. BioMed Central 2017-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5406971/ /pubmed/28446130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0199-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Gao, Yiming Quinn, Brian Mahmood, Usman Long, Daniel Erdi, Yusuf St. Germain, Jean Pandit-Taskar, Neeta Xu, X. George Bolch, Wesley E. Dauer, Lawrence T. A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods |
title | A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods |
title_full | A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods |
title_fullStr | A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods |
title_short | A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods |
title_sort | comparison of pediatric and adult ct organ dose estimation methods |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0199-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gaoyiming acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT quinnbrian acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT mahmoodusman acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT longdaniel acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT erdiyusuf acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT stgermainjean acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT pandittaskarneeta acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT xuxgeorge acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT bolchwesleye acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT dauerlawrencet acomparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT gaoyiming comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT quinnbrian comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT mahmoodusman comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT longdaniel comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT erdiyusuf comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT stgermainjean comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT pandittaskarneeta comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT xuxgeorge comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT bolchwesleye comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods AT dauerlawrencet comparisonofpediatricandadultctorgandoseestimationmethods |