Conversion factors for effective dose and organ doses with the air kerma area product in patients undergoing percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and trans arterial chemoembolization

Brambilla, Marco; Cannillo, Barbara; Guzzardi, Giuseppe; D'Alessio, Andrea; Galbiati, Andrea; Matheoud, Roberta; Carriero, Alessandro

doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.03.003

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clarity or not Clarity); imaging protocol (2D versus 3D); acquisition mode (fluoroscopy versus cine). This fact was already documented in previous studies related to cardiac (Bogaert et al 2008, Vano et al 2019 or non-cardiac procedures (Brambilla et al 2020, D'Alessio et al 2021. The different C-arm angulations, kV values, field size, geometrical factors, etc used during the procedures also impact on the DC ED_PKA values.…”

Section: Paediatric Patientssupporting

confidence: 53%

A systematic review of conversion factors between kerma-area product and effective/organ dose for cardiac interventional fluoroscopy procedures performed in adult and paediatric patients

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review is to undertake a critical appraisal of the evidence in the published literature concerning the conversion factors between kerma-area product (PKA) and effective/organ dose (DCED_PKA, DCHT_PKA) for cardiac interventional fluoroscopy procedures performed in adults and paediatric patients and to propose reference conversion factors to help standardize dose calculations. A search strategy utilizing MeSH headings in three databases identified 59 (adult) and 37 (paediatric) papers deemed eligible for the review. Exclusion criteria were adopted to select data only from publications which established DCED_PKA in patients using the ICRP103 tissue weighting factors. A time restriction from January 2007 was introduced in the search to capture the evolving trends of utilization of fluoroscopy-guided intervention technologies only in recent years. The suggested DCED_PKA and DCHT_PKA were synthesized by calculating the weighted averages of the values reported by the authors with weights corresponding to the study sample size. Eighteen studies for both adult (9) and paediatric (9) patients matching the search terms fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The suggested value for DCED_PKA in adult patients amounts to 0.24 mSvGy-1cm-2. The suggested values for DCHT_PKA ranged from a minimum of 0.15 mSvGy-1cm-2 for the female breast to a maximum of 0.97 mSvGy-1cm-2 for the lungs. The suggested values for DCED_PKA in paediatric patients ranged from 3.45 mSvGy-1cm-2 for the new-born to 0.49 mSvGy-1cm-2 in the 15-years age class. The suggested values for DCHT_PKA ranged from a minimum of 0.33 mSvGy-1cm-2 for bone marrow in the 15-years age class to a maximum of 11.49 mSvGy-1cm-2 for the heart in the new-born. To conclude, values of DCED_PKA/DCHT_PKA were provided for calculating effective/organ doses in cardiac interventional procedures. They can be useful for standardizing dose calculations, hence for comparison of the radiation detriment from different imaging procedures and in the framework of epidemiologic studies.

show abstract

Section: Paediatric Patientssupporting

confidence: 53%

A systematic review of conversion factors between kerma-area product and effective/organ dose for cardiac interventional fluoroscopy procedures performed in adult and paediatric patients

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The direct evaluation of the absorbed dose to an organ or a tissue remains a difficult and impractical task, requiring, in general, delicate and invasive procedure. Therefore, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is considered as an effective tool to simulate the interaction of particles with matter and to estimate the organ doses for computational anthropomorphic human phantoms [2][3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simulation codes such as MCNP [7,8], PENELOPE [9], EGSnrc [10], FLUKA [11], GEANT4 [12][13][14][15] and it's derivative GATE [16], provide the tools for calculating radiation doses and are commonly used in several studies focusing on patient and staff protection in interventional scenarios [2][3][4][5][6]. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that assess radiation exposure in IC procedures using the ICRP 110 voxellized phantoms [17] and GEANT4 toolkit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%