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