Cargando…

How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research

OBJECTIVE: Organ radiation dose from a CT scan, calculated by CT dosimetry software, can be combined with cancer risk data to estimate cancer incidence resulting from CT exposure. We aim to determine to what extent the use of improved anatomical representation of the adult human body “phantom” in CT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maxwell, Susannah, Fox, Richard, McRobbie, Donald, Bulsara, Max, Doust, Jenny, O’Leary, Peter, Slavotinek, John, Stubbs, John, Moorin, Rachael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6693687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31412037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217816
_version_ 1783443723489640448
author Maxwell, Susannah
Fox, Richard
McRobbie, Donald
Bulsara, Max
Doust, Jenny
O’Leary, Peter
Slavotinek, John
Stubbs, John
Moorin, Rachael
author_facet Maxwell, Susannah
Fox, Richard
McRobbie, Donald
Bulsara, Max
Doust, Jenny
O’Leary, Peter
Slavotinek, John
Stubbs, John
Moorin, Rachael
author_sort Maxwell, Susannah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Organ radiation dose from a CT scan, calculated by CT dosimetry software, can be combined with cancer risk data to estimate cancer incidence resulting from CT exposure. We aim to determine to what extent the use of improved anatomical representation of the adult human body “phantom” in CT dosimetry software impacts estimates of radiation dose and cancer incidence, to inform comparison of past and future research. METHODS: We collected 20 adult cases for each of three CT protocols (abdomen/pelvis, chest and head) from each of five public hospitals (random sample) (January-April inclusive 2010) and three private clinics (self-report). Organ equivalent and effective dose were calculated using both ImPACT (mathematical phantom) and NCICT (voxelised phantom) software. Bland-Altman plots demonstrate agreement and Passing-Bablok regression reports systematic, proportional or random differences between results. We modelled the estimated lifetime attributable risk of cancer from a single exposure for each protocol, using age-sex specific risk-coefficients from the Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report. RESULTS: For the majority of organs used in epidemiological studies of cancer incidence, the NCICT software (voxelised) provided higher dose estimates. Across the lifespan NCICT resulted in cancer estimates 2.9%-6.6% and 14.8%-16.3% higher in males and females (abdomen/pelvis) and 7.6%-19.7% and 12.9%-26.5% higher in males and females respectively (chest protocol). For the head protocol overall cancer estimates were lower for NCICT, but with greatest disparity, >30% at times. CONCLUSION: When the results of previous studies estimating CT dose and cancer incidence are compared to more recent, or future, studies the dosimetry software must be considered. Any change in radiation dose or cancer risk may be attributable to the software and phantom used, rather than—or in addition to—changes in scanning practice. Studies using dosimetry software to estimate radiation dose should describe software comprehensively to facilitate comparison with past and future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6693687
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66936872019-08-16 How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research Maxwell, Susannah Fox, Richard McRobbie, Donald Bulsara, Max Doust, Jenny O’Leary, Peter Slavotinek, John Stubbs, John Moorin, Rachael PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Organ radiation dose from a CT scan, calculated by CT dosimetry software, can be combined with cancer risk data to estimate cancer incidence resulting from CT exposure. We aim to determine to what extent the use of improved anatomical representation of the adult human body “phantom” in CT dosimetry software impacts estimates of radiation dose and cancer incidence, to inform comparison of past and future research. METHODS: We collected 20 adult cases for each of three CT protocols (abdomen/pelvis, chest and head) from each of five public hospitals (random sample) (January-April inclusive 2010) and three private clinics (self-report). Organ equivalent and effective dose were calculated using both ImPACT (mathematical phantom) and NCICT (voxelised phantom) software. Bland-Altman plots demonstrate agreement and Passing-Bablok regression reports systematic, proportional or random differences between results. We modelled the estimated lifetime attributable risk of cancer from a single exposure for each protocol, using age-sex specific risk-coefficients from the Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report. RESULTS: For the majority of organs used in epidemiological studies of cancer incidence, the NCICT software (voxelised) provided higher dose estimates. Across the lifespan NCICT resulted in cancer estimates 2.9%-6.6% and 14.8%-16.3% higher in males and females (abdomen/pelvis) and 7.6%-19.7% and 12.9%-26.5% higher in males and females respectively (chest protocol). For the head protocol overall cancer estimates were lower for NCICT, but with greatest disparity, >30% at times. CONCLUSION: When the results of previous studies estimating CT dose and cancer incidence are compared to more recent, or future, studies the dosimetry software must be considered. Any change in radiation dose or cancer risk may be attributable to the software and phantom used, rather than—or in addition to—changes in scanning practice. Studies using dosimetry software to estimate radiation dose should describe software comprehensively to facilitate comparison with past and future research. Public Library of Science 2019-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6693687/ /pubmed/31412037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217816 Text en © 2019 Maxwell et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Maxwell, Susannah
Fox, Richard
McRobbie, Donald
Bulsara, Max
Doust, Jenny
O’Leary, Peter
Slavotinek, John
Stubbs, John
Moorin, Rachael
How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research
title How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research
title_full How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research
title_fullStr How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research
title_full_unstemmed How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research
title_short How have advances in CT dosimetry software impacted estimates of CT radiation dose and cancer incidence? A comparison of CT dosimetry software: Implications for past and future research
title_sort how have advances in ct dosimetry software impacted estimates of ct radiation dose and cancer incidence? a comparison of ct dosimetry software: implications for past and future research
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6693687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31412037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217816
work_keys_str_mv AT maxwellsusannah howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT foxrichard howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT mcrobbiedonald howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT bulsaramax howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT doustjenny howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT olearypeter howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT slavotinekjohn howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT stubbsjohn howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch
AT moorinrachael howhaveadvancesinctdosimetrysoftwareimpactedestimatesofctradiationdoseandcancerincidenceacomparisonofctdosimetrysoftwareimplicationsforpastandfutureresearch