title: Patient-specific CT dosimetry calculation: a feasibility study.
abstract: Current estimation of radiation dose from computed tomography (CT) scans on patients has relied on the measurement of Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI) in standard cylindrical phantoms, and calculations based on mathematical representations of "standard man". Radiation dose to both adult and pediatric patients from a CT scan has been a concern, as noted in recent reports. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of adapting a radiation treatment planning system (RTPS) to provide patient-specific CT dosimetry. A radiation treatment planning system was modified to calculate patient-specific CT dose distributions, which can be represented by dose at specific points within an organ of interest, as well as organ dose-volumes (after image segmentation) for a GE Light Speed Ultra Plus CT scanner. The RTPS calculation algorithm is based on a semi-empirical, measured correction-based algorithm, which has been well established in the radiotherapy community. Digital representations of the physical phantoms (virtual phantom) were acquired with the GE CT scanner in axial mode. Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLDs) measurements in pediatric anthropomorphic phantoms were utilized to validate the dose at specific points within organs of interest relative to RTPS calculations and Monte Carlo simulations of the same virtual phantoms (digital representation). Congruence of the calculated and measured point doses for the same physical anthropomorphic phantom geometry was used to verify the feasibility of the method. The RTPS algorithm can be extended to calculate the organ dose by calculating a dose distribution point-by-point for a designated volume. Electron Gamma Shower (EGSnrc) codes for radiation transport calculations developed by National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) were utilized to perform the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. In general, the RTPS and MC dose calculations are within 10% of the TLD measurements for the infant and child chest scans. With respect to the dose comparisons for the head, the RTPS dose calculations are slightly higher (10%-20%) than the TLD measurements, while the MC results were within 10% of the TLD measurements. The advantage of the algebraic dose calculation engine of the RTPS is a substantially reduced computation time (minutes vs. days) relative to Monte Carlo calculations, as well as providing patient-specific dose estimation. It also provides the basis for a more elaborate reporting of dosimetric results, such as patient specific organ dose volumes after image segmentation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiology and the Children’s Research Institute, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA. tfearon@childrensnational.org.
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Fearon
authors.forename: Huchen
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Xie
authors.forename: Jason Y
authors.initials: JY
authors.lastname: Cheng
authors.forename: Holly
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Ning
authors.forename: Ying
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Zhuge
authors.forename: Robert W
authors.initials: RW
authors.lastname: Miller
mesh_terms: D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D013819:Thermoluminescent Dosimetry / Q000379:methods*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*
references.citation: Med Phys. 2008 Mar;35(3):1135-44
references.pmid: 18404948
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2004 Jul;14(7):1275-84
references.pmid: 15034744
references.citation: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;128(1):98-105
references.pmid: 17595212
references.citation: Health Phys. 1984 Apr;46(4):891-914
references.pmid: 6546741
references.citation: Med Phys. 1986 Nov-Dec;13(6):904-7
references.pmid: 3099145
references.citation: Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):1773-829
references.pmid: 9800687
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987 Jan;148(1):171-4
references.pmid: 3491508
references.citation: Med Phys. 1994 Apr;21(4):581-618
references.pmid: 8058027
references.citation: Med Phys. 2007 Jul;34(7):2853-63
references.pmid: 17821993
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 1991 Jan;64(757):20-8
references.pmid: 1998834
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1999 Dec;44(12):R157-89
references.pmid: 10616140
references.citation: Med Phys. 2008 Dec;35(12):5821-8
references.pmid: 19175138
references.citation: Med Phys. 2009 Jun;36(6):2154-64
references.pmid: 19610304
references.citation: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2008 Apr 29;9(2):98-111
references.pmid: 18714282
references.citation: Radiology. 2004 Nov;233(2):515-22
references.pmid: 15358847
references.citation: Med Phys. 1985 Sep-Oct;12(5):592-7
references.pmid: 4046993
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1991 Jul;36(7):861-920
references.pmid: 1886926
references.citation: Health Phys. 2006 Apr;90(4):337-56
references.pmid: 16538139
references.citation: Med Phys. 2010 Jan;37(1):40-8
references.pmid: 20175464
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1999 Sep;44(9):2213-25
references.pmid: 10495116
references.citation: Pediatr Radiol. 2006 Sep;36 Suppl 2:154-8
references.pmid: 16862419
references.citation: Med Phys. 1981 Jul-Aug;8(4):488-95
references.pmid: 7322067
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1997 Jan;42(1):219-29
references.pmid: 9015819
references.citation: Med Phys. 1995 Aug;22(8):1263-9
references.pmid: 7476712
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
references.pmid: 18046031
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2002 Jan 7;47(1):107-15
references.pmid: 11820223
references.citation: Med Phys. 2001 Feb;28(2):199-204
references.pmid: 11243344
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2006 Oct 21;51(20):5151-66
references.pmid: 17019030
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2002 Oct;75(898):819-30
references.pmid: 12381691
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2002 Sep 7;47(17):3143-64
references.pmid: 12361215
references.citation: Med Phys. 2001 Mar;28(3):393-9
references.pmid: 11318321
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):289-96
references.pmid: 11159059
references.citation: Med Phys. 1999 Dec;26(12):2626-34
references.pmid: 10619248
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):303-6
references.pmid: 11159061
references.citation: Radiology. 2004 Sep;232(3):735-8
references.pmid: 15273333
references.citation: Med Phys. 2002 Dec;29(12):2745-52
references.pmid: 12512706
references.citation: Med Phys. 2007 May;34(5):1858-73
references.pmid: 17555267
references.citation: Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1-3):1-201
references.pmid: 2053748
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):297-301
references.pmid: 11159060
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Sep;33(9):3283-9
references.pmid: 17022223
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Sep 7;50(17):3989-4004
references.pmid: 16177525
references.citation: J Radiol Prot. 2000 Dec;20(4):353-9
references.pmid: 11140709
references.citation: Med Phys. 2000 May;27(5):838-44
references.pmid: 10841385
references.citation: Radiat Environ Biophys. 1988;27(2):153-64
references.pmid: 3393623