Emergency Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 233–239 | Cite as

Signal-to-noise ratio and dose to the lens of the eye for computed tomography examination of the brain using an automatic tube current modulation system

Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The study aimed to evaluate the image quality in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and dose to the lens of the eye and the other nearby organs from the CT brain scan using an automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) system with or without CT gantry tilt is needed.

Methods

An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with different settings including use of different ATCM, fixed tube current time product (mAs) settings and degree angles of gantry tilt. Gafchromic film XR-QA2 was used to measure absorbed dose of the organs. Relative doses and SNR for the various scan settings were compared with the reference setting of the fixed 330 mAs.

Results

Average absorbed dose for the lens of the eyes varied from 8.7 to 21.7 mGy. The use of the ATCM system with the gantry tilt resulted in up to 60% decrease in the dose to the lens of the eye. SNR significantly decreased while tilting the gantry using the fixed mAs techniques, compared to that of the reference setting. However, there were no statistical significant differences for SNRs between the reference setting and all ATCM settings.

Conclusions

Compared to the reference setting of the fixed effective mAs, using the ATCM system and appropriate tilting, the gantry resulted in a substantial decrease in the dose to the lens of the eye while preserving signal-to-noise ratio. CT brain examination should be carefully controlled to optimize dose for lens of the eye and image quality of the examination.

Keywords

CT brain Tube current modulation Absorbed dose Eye lens 

References

  1. 1.
    Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB (2008) Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system: the use of imaging has skyrocketed in the past decade, but no one patient population or medical condition is responsible. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 27:1491–1502. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shrimpton PC, Hiller MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2005) Dose from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK-2003 review. National Radiological Protection Board, ChiltonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mettler FA Jr, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M, Gilley DB, Gray JE, Lipoti JA, McCrohan J, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 95:502–507. doi:10.1097/01.HP.0000326333.42287.a2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall EJ, Brenner DJ (2008) Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 81:362–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schauer DA, Linton OW (2009) NCRP report no. 160, ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure—are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 97:1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2–4)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciarmatori A, Nocetti L, Mistretta G, Zambelli G, Costi T (2016) Reducing absorbed dose to eye lenses in head CT examinations: the effect of bismuth shielding. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 39:583–589. doi:10.1007/s13246-016-0445-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan JS, Tan KL, Lee JC, Wan CM, Leong JL, Chan LL (2009) Comparison of eye lens dose on neuroimaging protocols between 16- and 64-section multidetector CT: achieving the lowest possible dose. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30:373–377. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1327 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibrahim M, Parmar H, Christodoulou E, Mukherji S (2014) Raise the bar and lower the dose: current and future strategies for radiation dose reduction in head and neck imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35:619–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ICRP (2012) 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. ICRP Publication 118. Ann. ICRP 41(1/2)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanchez RM, Vano E, Fernandez JM, Ginjaume M, Duch MA (2014) Measurements of eye lens doses in interventional cardiology using OSL and electronic dosemeters. Radiat Prot Dosim 162:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grobe H, Sommer M, Koch A, Hietschold V, Henniger J, Abolmaali N (2009) Dose reduction in computed tomography: the effect of eye and testicle shielding on radiation dose measured in patients with beryllium oxide-based optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry. Eur Radio l19:1156–1160. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1241-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaffe TA, Hoang JK, Yoshizumi TT, Toncheva G, Lowry C, Ravin C (2010) Radiation dose for routine clinical adult brain CT: variability on different scanners at one institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:433–438. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3957 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsieh J (2000) Tomographic reconstruction for tilted helical multislice CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 19:864–872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin C, Gentle D, Sookpeng S, Loveland J (2011) Application of Gafchromic film in the study of dosimetry methods in CT phantoms. J Radiol Prot 31:389–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rego SL, Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Vrieze TJ, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2007) CareDose 4D CT automatic exposure control (AEC): physics principle and practical hints [online document] Available at http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/ctcic/upload/rsna2007-care-dose-4d.pdf (Accessed: 10 Jan 2012)
  18. 18.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA, Saini S (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith AB, Dillon WP, Gould R, Wintemark M (2007) Radiation dose-reduction strategies for neuroradiology CT protocols. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:1628–1632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nikupaavo U, Kaasalainen T, Reijonen V, Ahonen SM, Kortesniemi M (2015) Lens dose in routine head CT: comparison of different optimization methods with anthropomorphic phantoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:117–123. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12763 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang D, Cagnon CH, Villablanca JP, McCollough CH, Cody DD, Stevens DM, Zankl M, Demarco JJ, Turner AC, Khatonabadi M, McNitt-Gray MF (2012) Peak skin and eye lens radiation dose from brain perfusion CT based on Monte Carlo simulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:412–417. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7230 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Akhilesh P, Kulkarni AR, Jamhale SH, Sharma SD, Kumar R, Datta D (2016) Estimation of eye lens dose during brain scans using Gafchromic Xr-QA2 film in various multidetector CT scanners. Radiat Prot Dosimetry May 31Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gorny KR, Leitzen SL, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM, Hangiandreou NJ, McCollough CH (2005) The calibration of experimental self-developing Gafchromic HXR film for the measurement of radiation dose in computed tomography. Med Phys 32:1010–1016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rampado O, Garelli S, Ropolo R (2006) Dose and energy dependence of response of Gafchromic XR-QA film for kilovoltage x-ray beams. Phys Med Biol 51:2871–2881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Allied Health SciencesNaresuan UniversityPhitsanulokThailand

Personalised recommendations