Cargando…

Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans

PURPOSE: To confirm AAPM Reports 204/220 and provide data for the future expansion of these reports by: (a) presenting the first large‐scale confirmation of the reports using clinical data, (b) providing the community with size surrogate data for the head region which was not provided in the origina...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burton, Christiane S., Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768014/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29178549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12223
_version_ 1783292634389807104
author Burton, Christiane S.
Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
author_facet Burton, Christiane S.
Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
author_sort Burton, Christiane S.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To confirm AAPM Reports 204/220 and provide data for the future expansion of these reports by: (a) presenting the first large‐scale confirmation of the reports using clinical data, (b) providing the community with size surrogate data for the head region which was not provided in the original reports, and additionally providing the measurements of patient ellipticity ratio for different body regions. METHOD: A total of 884 routine scans were included in our analysis including data from the head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis for adults and pediatrics. We calculated the ellipticity ratio and all of the size surrogates presented in AAPM Reports 204/220. We correlated the purely geometric‐based metrics with the “gold standard” water‐equivalent diameter (D(W)). RESULTS: Our results and AAPM Reports 204/220 agree within our data's 95% confidence intervals. Outliers to the AAPM reports’ methods were caused by excess gas in the GI tract, exceptionally low BMI, and cranial metaphyseal dysplasia. For the head, we show lower correlation (R(2) = 0.812) between effective diameter and D(W) relative to other body regions. The ellipticity ratio of the shoulder region was the highest at 2.28 ± 0.22 and the head the smallest at 0.85 ± 0.08. The abdomen pelvis, chest, thorax, and abdomen regions all had ellipticity values near 1.5. CONCLUSION: We confirmed AAPM reports 204/220 using clinical data and identified patient conditions causing discrepancies. We presented new size surrogate data for the head region and for the first time presented ellipticity data for all regions. Future automatic exposure control characterization should include ellipticity information.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5768014
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57680142018-04-02 Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans Burton, Christiane S. Szczykutowicz, Timothy P. J Appl Clin Med Phys Imaging Physics PURPOSE: To confirm AAPM Reports 204/220 and provide data for the future expansion of these reports by: (a) presenting the first large‐scale confirmation of the reports using clinical data, (b) providing the community with size surrogate data for the head region which was not provided in the original reports, and additionally providing the measurements of patient ellipticity ratio for different body regions. METHOD: A total of 884 routine scans were included in our analysis including data from the head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis for adults and pediatrics. We calculated the ellipticity ratio and all of the size surrogates presented in AAPM Reports 204/220. We correlated the purely geometric‐based metrics with the “gold standard” water‐equivalent diameter (D(W)). RESULTS: Our results and AAPM Reports 204/220 agree within our data's 95% confidence intervals. Outliers to the AAPM reports’ methods were caused by excess gas in the GI tract, exceptionally low BMI, and cranial metaphyseal dysplasia. For the head, we show lower correlation (R(2) = 0.812) between effective diameter and D(W) relative to other body regions. The ellipticity ratio of the shoulder region was the highest at 2.28 ± 0.22 and the head the smallest at 0.85 ± 0.08. The abdomen pelvis, chest, thorax, and abdomen regions all had ellipticity values near 1.5. CONCLUSION: We confirmed AAPM reports 204/220 using clinical data and identified patient conditions causing discrepancies. We presented new size surrogate data for the head region and for the first time presented ellipticity data for all regions. Future automatic exposure control characterization should include ellipticity information. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5768014/ /pubmed/29178549 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12223 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Imaging Physics
Burton, Christiane S.
Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans
title Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans
title_full Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans
title_fullStr Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans
title_short Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans
title_sort evaluation of aapm reports 204 and 220: estimation of effective diameter, water‐equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head ct scans
topic Imaging Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768014/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29178549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12223
work_keys_str_mv AT burtonchristianes evaluationofaapmreports204and220estimationofeffectivediameterwaterequivalentdiameterandellipticityratiosforchestabdomenpelvisandheadctscans
AT szczykutowicztimothyp evaluationofaapmreports204and220estimationofeffectivediameterwaterequivalentdiameterandellipticityratiosforchestabdomenpelvisandheadctscans