Cargando…

A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM)

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to estimate and compare breast and lung doses of chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) to those from conventional, attenuation‐based automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) across a range of patient sizes. METHODS: Thirty‐four patient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Layman, Rick R., Hardy, Anthony J., Kim, Hyun J., Chou, Ei Ne, Bostani, Maryam, Cagnon, Chris, Cody, Dianna, McNitt‐Gray, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33939253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13198
_version_ 1783694470772948992
author Layman, Rick R.
Hardy, Anthony J.
Kim, Hyun J.
Chou, Ei Ne
Bostani, Maryam
Cagnon, Chris
Cody, Dianna
McNitt‐Gray, Michael
author_facet Layman, Rick R.
Hardy, Anthony J.
Kim, Hyun J.
Chou, Ei Ne
Bostani, Maryam
Cagnon, Chris
Cody, Dianna
McNitt‐Gray, Michael
author_sort Layman, Rick R.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to estimate and compare breast and lung doses of chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) to those from conventional, attenuation‐based automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) across a range of patient sizes. METHODS: Thirty‐four patients (17 females, 17 males) who underwent clinically indicated CT chest/abdomen/pelvis (CAP) examinations employing OBTCM were collected from two multi‐detector row CT scanners. Patient size metric was assessed as water equivalent diameter (D(w)) taken at the center of the scan volume. Breast and lung tissues were segmented from patient image data to create voxelized models for use in a Monte Carlo transport code. The OBTCM schemes for the chest portion were extracted from the raw projection data. ATCM schemes were estimated using a recently developed method. Breast and lung doses for each TCM scenario were estimated for each patient model. CTDI(vol)‐normalized breast (nD(breast)) and lung (nD(lung)) doses were subsequently calculated. The differences between OBTCM and ATCM normalized organ dose estimates were tested using linear regression models that included CT scanner and D(w) as covariates. RESULTS: Mean dose reduction from OBTCM in nD(breast) was significant after adjusting for the scanner models and patient size (P = 0.047). When pooled with females and male patient, mean dose reduction from OBTCM in nD(lung) was observed to be trending after adjusting for the scanner model and patient size (P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS: One specific manufacturer’s OBTCM was analyzed. OBTCM was observed to significantly decrease normalized breast relative to a modeled version of that same manufacturer’s ATCM scheme. However, significant dose savings were not observed in lung dose over all. Results from this study support the use of OBTCM chest protocols for females only.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8130227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81302272021-05-21 A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) Layman, Rick R. Hardy, Anthony J. Kim, Hyun J. Chou, Ei Ne Bostani, Maryam Cagnon, Chris Cody, Dianna McNitt‐Gray, Michael J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to estimate and compare breast and lung doses of chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) to those from conventional, attenuation‐based automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) across a range of patient sizes. METHODS: Thirty‐four patients (17 females, 17 males) who underwent clinically indicated CT chest/abdomen/pelvis (CAP) examinations employing OBTCM were collected from two multi‐detector row CT scanners. Patient size metric was assessed as water equivalent diameter (D(w)) taken at the center of the scan volume. Breast and lung tissues were segmented from patient image data to create voxelized models for use in a Monte Carlo transport code. The OBTCM schemes for the chest portion were extracted from the raw projection data. ATCM schemes were estimated using a recently developed method. Breast and lung doses for each TCM scenario were estimated for each patient model. CTDI(vol)‐normalized breast (nD(breast)) and lung (nD(lung)) doses were subsequently calculated. The differences between OBTCM and ATCM normalized organ dose estimates were tested using linear regression models that included CT scanner and D(w) as covariates. RESULTS: Mean dose reduction from OBTCM in nD(breast) was significant after adjusting for the scanner models and patient size (P = 0.047). When pooled with females and male patient, mean dose reduction from OBTCM in nD(lung) was observed to be trending after adjusting for the scanner model and patient size (P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS: One specific manufacturer’s OBTCM was analyzed. OBTCM was observed to significantly decrease normalized breast relative to a modeled version of that same manufacturer’s ATCM scheme. However, significant dose savings were not observed in lung dose over all. Results from this study support the use of OBTCM chest protocols for females only. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8130227/ /pubmed/33939253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13198 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Layman, Rick R.
Hardy, Anthony J.
Kim, Hyun J.
Chou, Ei Ne
Bostani, Maryam
Cagnon, Chris
Cody, Dianna
McNitt‐Gray, Michael
A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM)
title A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM)
title_full A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM)
title_fullStr A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM)
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM)
title_short A comparison of breast and lung doses from chest CT scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (OBTCM) vs. Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM)
title_sort comparison of breast and lung doses from chest ct scans using organ‐based tube current modulation (obtcm) vs. automatic tube current modulation (atcm)
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33939253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13198
work_keys_str_mv AT laymanrickr acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT hardyanthonyj acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT kimhyunj acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT choueine acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT bostanimaryam acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT cagnonchris acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT codydianna acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT mcnittgraymichael acomparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT laymanrickr comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT hardyanthonyj comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT kimhyunj comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT choueine comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT bostanimaryam comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT cagnonchris comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT codydianna comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm
AT mcnittgraymichael comparisonofbreastandlungdosesfromchestctscansusingorganbasedtubecurrentmodulationobtcmvsautomatictubecurrentmodulationatcm