Clinical evaluation of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans

Nika Guberina; Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Kai Naßenstein; Michael Forsting; Jens Theysohn; Axel Wetter; Adrian Ringelstein

doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1722-x

Neuroradiology

October 2016, Volume 58, Issue 10, pp 955–959

Clinical evaluation of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Nika GuberinaEmail author
Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam
Kai Naßenstein
Michael Forsting
Jens Theysohn
Axel Wetter
Adrian Ringelstein

Diagnostic Neuroradiology

First Online:: 20 July 2016

Received:: 12 April 2016
Accepted:: 28 June 2016

1 Citations
1 Shares
173 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to verify the results of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans.

Methods

In cooperation with the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Neuherberg, Germany), phantom measurements were performed with thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD LiF:Mg,Ti) using cranial CT protocols: (I) CT angiography; (II) unenhanced, cranial CT scans with gantry angulation at a single and (III) without gantry angulation at a dual source CT scanner. Eye lens doses calculated by the dose monitoring tool based on MCS and assessed with TLDs were compared.

Results

Eye lens doses are summarized as follows: (I) CT angiography (a) MCS 7 mSv, (b) TLD 5 mSv; (II) unenhanced, cranial CT scan with gantry angulation, (c) MCS 45 mSv, (d) TLD 5 mSv; (III) unenhanced, cranial CT scan without gantry angulation (e) MCS 38 mSv, (f) TLD 35 mSv. Intermodality comparison shows an inaccurate calculation of eye lens doses in unenhanced cranial CT protocols at the single source CT scanner due to the disregard of gantry angulation. On the contrary, the dose monitoring tool showed an accurate calculation of eye lens doses at the dual source CT scanner without gantry angulation and for CT angiography examinations.

Conclusion

The dose monitoring software tool based on MCS gave accurate estimates of eye lens doses in cranial CT protocols. However, knowledge of protocol and software specific influences is crucial for correct assessment of eye lens doses in routine clinical use.

Keywords

Phantom study Eye lens dose Radiation exposure Dose monitoring software tool Monte Carlo Simulation

Abbreviations

ICRP: International Commission on Radiological Protection
kV: Tube voltage
mAs: Tube current time product
p: Pitch
Sv: Sievert
TLD: Thermoluminescence dosimeter
VOI: Volume of interest

References

1.
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) A Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
2.
National Research Council BEIR VII Committee. BEIR VII: health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. 2005. http://delsold.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/beir_vii_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
3.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
ICRP 2007b Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). ICRP publication 102. Ann. ICRP 37: 1Google Scholar
5.
Euratom Article 9 and 11 European Union. Council Directive 97/43 Euratom, on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466 Euratom. Available at: http://eurex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri OJ:L:1997:180:0022:0027:EN:PDF. Accessed 9 June 2012
6.
Rehani MM, Berry M (2000) Radiation doses in computed tomography. The increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled. BMJ 320:593–594CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
7.
Little MP (2003) Risks associated with ionizing radiation environmental pollution and health. Br Med Bull 68:259–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Ainsbury EA, Bouffler SD, Dörr W et al (2009) Radiat Radiation cataractogenesis: a review of recent studies. Res 172:1–9Google Scholar
9.
ICRP 2011 Statement on tissue reactions. 2011. Report No.: ICRP ref 4825-3093-1464.Google Scholar
10.
Keil B, Wulff J, Schmitt R et al (2008) Protection of eye lens in computed tomography—dose evaluation on an anthropomorphic phantom using thermo-luminescent dosimeters and Monte-Carlo simulations. Röfo 180:1047–1053PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Tan JS, Tan KL, Lee JC, Wan CM, Leong JL, Chan LL (2008) Comparison of eye lens dose on neuroimaging protocols between 16- and 64-section multidetector CT: achieving the lowest possible dose. Am J Neuroradiol 30:373–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-expo—a novel program for dose evaluation in CT. Röfo 174:1570–1576PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Radimetrics enterprise platform. BayerHealthcare, Leverkusen, Germany https://www.radiologie.bayer.de/informatics/radimetrics-ep Accessed 15 Mai 2016
14.
Ding A, Gao Y, Liu H et al (2015) VirtualDose: a software for reporting organ doses from CT for adult and pediatric patients. Phys Med Biol 60:5601–5625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Kalender WA, Schmidt B, Zankl M, Schmidt M (1999) A PC program for estimating organ dose and effective dose values in computed tomography. Euro Radiol 9:555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
ImPACT. Imaging performance assessment of CT-scanners group ImPACT CT patient dosimetry calculator v. 0.99 j. http://www.impactscan.org Accessed 15 Mai 2016
17.
LeHeron JC (1993) CTDOSE—a computer program to enable the calculation of organ doses and dose indices for CT examinations. Ministry of Health, National Radiation Laboratory, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
18.
European Commission (2000) Report EUR 19604 EN “Recommendations for patient dosimetry in diagnostic radiology using TLD”Google Scholar
19.
Lechel U, Becker C, Langenfeld-Jäger G, Brix G (2009) Dose reduction by automatic exposure control in multi-slice computed tomography: comparison between measurement and calculation. Eur Radiol 19:1027–1034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Christy M, Eckerman KF (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. I.MethodsGoogle Scholar
21.
ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:2–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.
Turner AC, Zankl M, DeMarco JJ et al (2010) The feasibility of a scanner-independent technique to estimate organ dose from MDCT scans: using CTDI_vol to account for differences between scanners. Med Phys 37:1816–1825CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
23.
Abdeen N, Chakraborty S, Nguyen T et al (2010) Comparison of image quality and lens dose in helical and sequentially acquired head CT. Clin Radiol 65:868–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Nika Guberina
- 1
Email author
Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam
- 1
Kai Naßenstein
- 1
Michael Forsting
- 1
Jens Theysohn
- 1
Axel Wetter
- 1
Adrian Ringelstein
- 1

1.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital EssenEssenGermany

About this article

CrossMark

Cite this article as:: Guberina, N., Suntharalingam, S., Naßenstein, K. et al. Neuroradiology (2016) 58: 955. doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1722-x

Clinical evaluation of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Abbreviations

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cookies