Cargando…

An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner

Organ Dose Modulation or ODM (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) was evaluated to characterize changes in [Formula: see text] , image noise, effective dose, and organ dose saving to patients. Three separate investigations were completed: a tube current modulation phantom was scanned with and without ODM,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dixon, Matthew T., Loader, Robert J., Stevens, Gregory C., Rowles, Nick P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5724
_version_ 1783279698749423616
author Dixon, Matthew T.
Loader, Robert J.
Stevens, Gregory C.
Rowles, Nick P.
author_facet Dixon, Matthew T.
Loader, Robert J.
Stevens, Gregory C.
Rowles, Nick P.
author_sort Dixon, Matthew T.
collection PubMed
description Organ Dose Modulation or ODM (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) was evaluated to characterize changes in [Formula: see text] , image noise, effective dose, and organ dose saving to patients. Three separate investigations were completed: a tube current modulation phantom was scanned with and without ODM, a [Formula: see text] phantom was scanned with ODM, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed. ODM was found to reduce the [Formula: see text] by approximately 20% whilst increasing the noise by approximately 14%. This was reflected in the dose distribution, where the anterior peripheral dose was reduced by approximately 40% whilst the identical posterior dose remained largely unaffected. Enabling ODM for the entire scan would reduce the effective dose by approximately 24%; however, this saving reduces to 5% if the images are matched for [Formula: see text]. These savings mostly originated from reductions in dose to the stomach, breasts, colon, bladder, and liver. ODM has the effect of a global reduction in [Formula: see text] with an associated increase in image noise. The benefit of ODM was found to be reduced when the dose‐saving contribution from the reduced [Formula: see text] was removed. Given that there is a higher contribution to effective dose throughout the body from the anterior projections, consideration should be given to applying ODM throughout. PACS number(s): 87.10.Rt, 87.53.Bn, 87.57.C‐, 87.57.Q‐
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690941
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56909412018-04-02 An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner Dixon, Matthew T. Loader, Robert J. Stevens, Gregory C. Rowles, Nick P. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging Organ Dose Modulation or ODM (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) was evaluated to characterize changes in [Formula: see text] , image noise, effective dose, and organ dose saving to patients. Three separate investigations were completed: a tube current modulation phantom was scanned with and without ODM, a [Formula: see text] phantom was scanned with ODM, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed. ODM was found to reduce the [Formula: see text] by approximately 20% whilst increasing the noise by approximately 14%. This was reflected in the dose distribution, where the anterior peripheral dose was reduced by approximately 40% whilst the identical posterior dose remained largely unaffected. Enabling ODM for the entire scan would reduce the effective dose by approximately 24%; however, this saving reduces to 5% if the images are matched for [Formula: see text]. These savings mostly originated from reductions in dose to the stomach, breasts, colon, bladder, and liver. ODM has the effect of a global reduction in [Formula: see text] with an associated increase in image noise. The benefit of ODM was found to be reduced when the dose‐saving contribution from the reduced [Formula: see text] was removed. Given that there is a higher contribution to effective dose throughout the body from the anterior projections, consideration should be given to applying ODM throughout. PACS number(s): 87.10.Rt, 87.53.Bn, 87.57.C‐, 87.57.Q‐ John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690941/ /pubmed/27167255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5724 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Dixon, Matthew T.
Loader, Robert J.
Stevens, Gregory C.
Rowles, Nick P.
An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner
title An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner
title_full An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner
title_fullStr An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner
title_short An evaluation of organ dose modulation on a GE optima CT660‐computed tomography scanner
title_sort evaluation of organ dose modulation on a ge optima ct660‐computed tomography scanner
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5724
work_keys_str_mv AT dixonmatthewt anevaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner
AT loaderrobertj anevaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner
AT stevensgregoryc anevaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner
AT rowlesnickp anevaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner
AT dixonmatthewt evaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner
AT loaderrobertj evaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner
AT stevensgregoryc evaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner
AT rowlesnickp evaluationoforgandosemodulationonageoptimact660computedtomographyscanner