, Volume 58, Issue 10, pp 955–959 | Cite as

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

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



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.


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



International Commission on Radiological Protection


Tube voltage


Tube current time product






Thermoluminescence dosimeter


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.


  1. 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. 2.
    National Research Council BEIR VII Committee. BEIR VII: health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. 2005. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ICRP 2007b Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). ICRP publication 102. Ann. ICRP 37: 1Google Scholar
  5. 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: OJ:L:1997:180:0022:0027:EN:PDF. Accessed 9 June 2012
  6. 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. 7.
    Little MP (2003) Risks associated with ionizing radiation environmental pollution and health. Br Med Bull 68:259–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ainsbury EA, Bouffler SD, Dörr W et al (2009) Radiat Radiation cataractogenesis: a review of recent studies. Res 172:1–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ICRP 2011 Statement on tissue reactions. 2011. Report No.: ICRP ref 4825-3093-1464.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 12.
    Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-expo—a novel program for dose evaluation in CT. Röfo 174:1570–1576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radimetrics enterprise platform. BayerHealthcare, Leverkusen, Germany Accessed 15 Mai 2016
  14. 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. 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. 16.
    ImPACT. Imaging performance assessment of CT-scanners group ImPACT CT patient dosimetry calculator v. 0.99 j. Accessed 15 Mai 2016
  17. 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. 18.
    European Commission (2000) Report EUR 19604 EN “Recommendations for patient dosimetry in diagnostic radiology using TLD”Google Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Christy M, Eckerman KF (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. I.MethodsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:2–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 CTDIvol to account for differences between scanners. Med Phys 37:1816–1825CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 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

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

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

Personalised recommendations