Organ doses evaluation for chest computed tomography procedures with TL dosimeters: Comparison with Monte Carlo simulations

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate organ doses in routine and low‐dose chest computed tomography (CT) protocols using an experimental methodology. To compare experimental results with results obtained by the National Cancer Institute dosimetry system for CT (NCICT) organ dose calculator. To address the differences on organ dose measurements using tube current modulation (TCM) and fixed tube current protocols.MethodsAn experimental approach to evaluate organ doses in pediatric and adult anthropomorphic phantoms using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) was employed in this study. Several analyses were performed in order to establish the best way to achieve the main results in this investigation. The protocols used in this study were selected after an analysis of patient data collected from the Institute of Radiology of the School of Medicine of the University of São Paulo (InRad). The image quality was evaluated by a radiologist from this institution. Six chest adult protocols and four chest pediatric protocols were evaluated. Lung doses were evaluated for the adult phantom and lung and thyroid doses were evaluated for the pediatric phantom. The irradiations were performed using both a GE and a Philips CT scanner. Finally, organ doses measured with dosimeters were compared with Monte Carlo simulations performed with NCICT.ResultsAfter analyzing the data collected from all CT examinations performed during a period of 3 yr, the authors identified that adult and pediatric chest CT are among the most applied protocol in patients in that clinical institution, demonstrating the relevance on evaluating organ doses due to these examinations. With regards to the scan parameters adopted, the authors identified that using 80 kV instead of 120 kV for a pediatric chest routine CT, with TCM in both situations, can lead up to a 28.7% decrease on the absorbed dose. Moreover, in comparison to the standard adult protocol, which is performed with fixed mAs, TCM, and ultra low‐dose protocols resulted in dose reductions of up to 35.0% and 90.0%, respectively. Finally, the percent differences found between experimental and Monte Carlo simulated organ doses were within a 20% interval.ConclusionsThe results obtained in this study measured the impact on the absorbed dose in routine chest CT by changing several scan parameters while the image quality could be potentially preserved.

Conversion factors to derive organ doses for canine subjects undergoing CT examinations

“…Another approach uses computer calculations where X‐rays emitted from CT machines and the human anatomy are simulated by a statistical tool called Monte Carlo radiation transport. We adopted a 3D Monte Carlo simulation model of a reference CT scanner (Sensation 16, Siemens Healthineers, Munich, Germany), previously published elsewhere 12 and experimentally validated, 17–19 in which detailed technical features are modeled based on the data obtained from the manufacturer. We used three different X‐ray energies: 80, 100, and 120 kV.…”

Developing and implementing a multi-modality imaging optimization study in paediatric radiology: Experience and recommendations from an IAEA coordinated research project

“…Furthermore, dose data, as numerical values, are not an appropriate indication of better or worse practice but can, to some extent, reveal useful information regarding weaknesses and gaps in local practices that can be improved or corrected. In addition, the identification of patterns of dose quantities is a milestone for a consistent optimization process in paediatric patients, since the quantification of absorbed dose in representative organs is complex, especially in CT procedures [13][14][15].…”

Structural Shielding Design of CT Facility using Monte Carlo Simulation

“…Since the introduction of CT in 1970, it is ever-growing. It is estimated that more than 62 million CT scans per year are currently obtained in the United States alone, including at least 4 million for children [3].…”