Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 428–437 | Cite as

Patient Vertical Centering and Correlation with Radiation Output in Adult Abdominopelvic CT

  • Phillip M. ChengEmail author


The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a significant effect, independent of patient size, of patient vertical centering on the current-modulated CT scanner radiation output in adult abdominopelvic CT. A phantom was used to evaluate calculation of vertical positioning and effective diameter at five different table heights. In addition, 656 consecutive contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic scans using the same protocol and automatic tube current modulation settings on a Philips Brilliance 64 MDCT scanner were retrospectively evaluated. The vertical position of the patient center of mass and the average effective diameter of the scanned patient were computed using the reconstructed images. The average volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) for each scan was recorded. The mean patient center of mass y coordinate ranged from −3.7 to 6.7 cm (mean ± SD, 2.8 ± 1.2 cm), indicating that patients were on average positioned slightly below the scanner isocenter. There was a slight tendency for smaller patients to be mis-centered lower than larger patients. Average CTDIvol closely fit a quadratic regression curve with respect to mean effective diameter. However, the value of the regression coefficient relating CTDIvol to the patient’s vertical position was nearly zero, indicating only a very slight increase in CTDIvol with patient mis-centering for the scanner used in this study. The techniques used here may be useful both for automated evaluation of proper patient positioning in CT and for estimating the radiation dose effects of patient mis-centering for any CT scanner.


Computed tomography Radiation dose Body imaging Quality control Image analysis 



We thank Enrique Godinez for his assistance in obtaining scans of the quality assurance phantom.


  1. 1.
    Harri PA, Moreno CC, Nelson RC, Fani N, Small WC, Duong P-AT, Duong A, Tang X, Applegate KE: Variability of MDCT dose due to technologist performance: impact of posteroanterior versus anteroposterior localizer image and table height with use of automated tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:377–386, 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaasalainen T, Palmu K, Reijonen V, Kortesniemi M: Effect of patient centering on patient dose and image noise in chest CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:123–130, 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larson DB, Strauss KJ, Podberesky DJ: Toward large-scale process control to enable consistent CT radiation dose optimization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:959–966, 2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toth T, Ge Z, Daly MP: The influence of patient centering on CT dose and image noise. Med Phys 34:3093–3101, 2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Habibzadeh MA, Ay MR, Asl ARK, Ghadiri H, Zaidi H: Impact of miscentering on patient dose and image noise in x-ray CT imaging: phantom and clinical studies. Phys Med 28:191–199, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li J, Udayasankar UK, Toth TL, Seamans J, Small WC, Kalra MK: Automatic patient centering for MDCT: effect on radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:547–552, 2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng PM: Automated estimation of abdominal effective diameter for body size normalization of CT dose. J Digit Imaging 26:406–411, 2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rasband WS: ImageJ. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Python Language Reference, version 2.7, Python Software Foundation, 2015Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Walt S, Colbert SC, Varoquaux G: The NumPy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation. Comput Sci Eng 13:22–30, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Supanich, MP: Tube current modulation by vendor and how to integrate TCM into practice, Phoenix, AZ, 15-Mar-2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boone JM, McNitt-Gray MF: CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology 259:311–316, 2011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matsubara K, Koshida K, Ichikawa K, Suzuki M, Takata T, Yamamoto T, Matsui O: Misoperation of CT automatic tube current modulation systems with inappropriate patient centering: phantom studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:862–865, 2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaasalainen T, Palmu K, Lampinen A, Kortesniemi M: Effect of vertical positioning on organ dose, image noise and contrast in pediatric chest CT—phantom study. Pediatr Radiol 43:673–684, 2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyKeck School of Medicine of USCLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.USC Norris Cancer Center and HospitalLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations