Clinical evaluation of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsPhantom study Eye lens dose Radiation exposure Dose monitoring software tool Monte Carlo Simulation
International Commission on Radiological Protection
Tube current time product
Volume of interest
Compliance with ethical standards
We declare that this manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 13.Radimetrics enterprise platform. BayerHealthcare, Leverkusen, Germany https://www.radiologie.bayer.de/informatics/radimetrics-ep Accessed 15 Mai 2016
- 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
- 20.Christy M, Eckerman KF (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. I.MethodsGoogle Scholar