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,...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |