Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 177–186 | Cite as

The effects of simulating a realistic eye model on the eye dose of an adult male undergoing head computed tomography

  • Parisa Akhlaghi
  • Atiyeh Ebrahimi-Khankook
  • Alireza Vejdani-Noghreiyan
Original Article
  • 138 Downloads

Abstract

In head computed tomography, radiation upon the eye lens (as an organ with high radiosensitivity) may cause lenticular opacity and cataracts. Therefore, quantitative dose assessment due to exposure of the eye lens and surrounding tissue is a matter of concern. For this purpose, an accurate eye model with realistic geometry and shape, in which different eye substructures are considered, is needed. To calculate the absorbed radiation dose of visual organs during head computed tomography scans, in this study, an existing sophisticated eye model was inserted at the related location in the head of the reference adult male phantom recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Then absorbed doses and distributions of energy deposition in different parts of this eye model were calculated and compared with those based on a previous simple eye model. All calculations were done using the Monte Carlo code MCNP4C for tube voltages of 80, 100, 120 and 140 kVp. In spite of the similarity of total dose to the eye lens for both eye models, the dose delivered to the sensitive zone, which plays an important role in the induction of cataracts, was on average 3% higher for the sophisticated model as compared to the simple model. By increasing the tube voltage, differences between the total dose to the eye lens between the two phantoms decrease to 1%. Due to this level of agreement, use of the sophisticated eye model for patient dosimetry is not necessary. However, it still helps for an estimation of doses received by different eye substructures separately.

Keywords

Eye lens Cataract Computed tomography Monte Carlo simulation Adult male phantom 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Karl Stierstorfer for providing the X-ray source and geometry data of the Siemens Somatom Sensation 16 scanner.

References

  1. Akhlaghi P, Hoseinian-Azghadi E, Miri-Hakimabad M, Rafat-Motavalli L (2016) A monte carlo study on quantifying the amount of dose reduction by shielding the superficial organs of an Iranian 11-year-old boy. J Med Phys 41:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akhlaghi P, Miri Hakimabad H, Rafat Motavalli L (2015a) Determination of tissue equivalent materials of a physical 8-year-old phantom for use in computed tomography. Radiat Phys Chem 112:169–176.Google Scholar
  3. Akhlaghi P, Miri-Hakimabad H, Rafat-Motavalli L (2015b) Evaluation of dose conversion coefficients for an eight-year-old Iranian male phantom undergoing computed tomography. Radiat Environ Biophys 54:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akhlaghi P, Miri-Hakimabad H, Rafat-Motavalli L (2015c) Dose estimation in reference and non-reference pediatric patients undergoing computed tomography examinations: a Monte Carlo study. Radioprotection 50:43–54Google Scholar
  5. Alghamdi AA, Ma A, Marouli M, Albarakati Y, Kacperek A, Spyrou NM (2007) A high-resolution anthropomorphic voxel-based tomographic phantom for proton therapy of the eye. Phys Med Biol 52:N51–N59Google Scholar
  6. American Academy of Ophthalmology (2015) Basic and clinical science course (BCSC): Sect. 1: Update on general medicine. American Academy of Ophthalmology, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. Behrens R (2013) Dose conversion coefficients for electron exposure of the human eye lens: calculations including a full human phantom. Radiat Prot Dosim 155:224–235Google Scholar
  8. Behrens R, Dietze G (2010) Dose conversion coefficients for photon exposure of the human eye lens. Phys Med Biol 56:415–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Behrens R, Dietze G, Zankl M (2009) Dose conversion coefficients for electron exposure of the human eye lens. Phys Med Biol 54:4069–4087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briesmeister JF (2000) MCNP General Monte Carlo n-particle transport code. Version 4 C. Report LA-13709-M, Los Alamos National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  12. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM (2002) The essential physics of medical imaging. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Caracappa PF, Rhodes A, Fiedler D (2014) Multi-resolution voxel phantom modeling: a high-resolution eye model for computational dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 59:5261–5275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chodick G, Bekiroglu N, Hauptmann M, Alexander BH, Freedman DM, Doody MM et al (2008) Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol 168:620–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ciraj-Bjelac O, Rehani MM, Sim KH, Liew HB, Vano E, Kleiman NJ (2010) Risk for radiation-induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: is there reason for concern? Catheter Cardiovasc Intev 76:826–834Google Scholar
  16. Hall P, Granath F, Lundell M, Olsson K, Holm LE (1999) Lenticular opacities in individuals exposed to ionizing radiation in infancy. Radiat Res 152:190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han EY, Bolch WE, Eckerman KF (2006) Revisions to the ORNL series of adult and pediatric computational phantoms for use with the MIRD schema. Health Phys 90:337–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huda W, Vance A (2007) Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol 188:540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huda W, Ravenel JG, Scalzetti EM (2002) How do radiographic techniques affect image quality and patient doses in CT? Semin Ultrasound CT MR 23:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2000) ICRP Publication 87: Managing patient dose in computed tomography. Ann ICRP 30. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2002) ICRP Publication 89: Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection reference values. Ann ICRP 32(3–4). Pergamon press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2009) ICRP Publication 110: Adult reference computational phantoms. Ann ICRP 39(2). Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2010) ICRP Publication 116: Conversion coefficients for radiological protection quantities for external radiation exposures. Ann ICRP 40(2–5). Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  24. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2012) ICRP Publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions / early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs—threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 41(1/2). Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC, Wall BF (2002) Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. Br J Radiol 75:819–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim JH, Kim CS, Lim CS, Chung JY (2012) Evaluation of radiation exposure upon visual organs during a head CT scan. J Nucl Sci Technol 49:754–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirk BL (2010) Overview of Monte Carlo radiation transport codes. Radiat Meas 45:1318–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee C, Kim KP, Long D, Fisher R, Tien C, Simon SL, Bouville A, Bolch WE (2011) Organ doses for reference adult male and female undergoing computed tomography estimated by Monte Carlo simulations. Med Phys 38:1196–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee C, Kim KP, Long DJ, Bolch WE (2012) Organ doses for reference pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing computed tomography estimated by Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys 39:2129–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manger RP, Bellamy MB, Eckerman KF (2012) Dose conversion coefficients for neutron exposure to the lens of the human eye. Radiat Prot Dosim 148:507–513Google Scholar
  31. Merriam GR Jr, Worgul BV (1983) Experimental radiation cataract-its clinical relevance. B New York. Acad Med 59:372Google Scholar
  32. Michel M, Jacob S, Roger G, Pelosse B, Laurier D, Le Pointe HD, Bernier MO (2012) Eye lens radiation exposure and repeated head CT scans: a problem to keep in mind. Eur J Radiol 81:1896–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minamoto A, Taniguchi H, Yoshitani N, Mukai S, Yokoyama T, Kumagami T, Tsuda Y, Mishima HK, Amemiya T, Nakashima E, Neriishi K (2004) Cataracts in atomic bomb survivors. Int J Radiat Biol 80:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mourtada F, Soares CG, Seltzer SM, Bergstrom PM, Fernández-Verea JM, Asenjo J, Lott SH (2003) Dosimetry characterization of a 32P source wire used for intravascular brachytherapy with automated stepping. Med Phys 30:959–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (1993) NCRP Report No. 116: Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiationGoogle Scholar
  36. Nogueira P, Zankl M, Schlattl H, Vaz P (2011) Dose conversion coefficients for monoenergetic electrons incident on a realistic human eye model with different lens cell populations. Phys Med Biol 56:6919–6934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sagerman RH, Alberti WE (2012) Radiotherapy of intraocular and orbital tumors. Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  38. Sakhaee M, Vejdani-Noghreiyan A, Ebrahimi-Khankook A (2015) A comparison of simple and realistic eye models for calculation of fluence to dose conversion coefficients in a broad parallel beam incident of protons. Radiat Phys Chem 106:61–67Google Scholar
  39. Suzuki S, Furui S, Ishitake T, Abe T, Machida H, Takei R, Ibukuro K, Watanabe A, Kidouchi T, Nakano Y (2010) Lens exposure during brain scans using multidetector row CT scanners: methods for estimation of lens dose. Am J Neuroradiol 31:822–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2006) UNSCEAR 2006 Report: Effects of ionizing radiation. United Nation Publication, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Vejdani-Noghreiyan A, Ebrahimi-Khankook A (2016) Development of an accommodation-dependent eye model and studying the effects of accommodation on electron and proton dose conversion coefficients. Iran J Med Phys 13:137–145Google Scholar
  42. Worgul BV, Kundiyev YI, Sergiyenko NM, Chumak VV, Vitte PM (2007) Cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers: implications regarding permissible eye exposures. Rad Res 167:223–243Google Scholar
  43. Yamauchi-Kawaura C, Fujii K, Aoyama T, Yamauchi M, Koyama S (2009) Evaluation of radiation doses from MDCT-imaging in otolaryngology. Radiat Prot Dosim 136:38–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Parisa Akhlaghi
    • 1
  • Atiyeh Ebrahimi-Khankook
    • 2
  • Alireza Vejdani-Noghreiyan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of MedicineTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
  2. 2.Physics Department, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of NeyshaburNeyshaburIran

Personalised recommendations