title: The feasibility of a regional CTDIvol to estimate organ dose from tube current modulated CT exams.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  In AAPM Task Group 204, the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) was developed by providing size adjustment factors which are applied to the Computed Tomography (CT) standardized dose metric, CTDI(vol). However, that work focused on fixed tube current scans and did not specifically address tube current modulation (TCM) scans, which are currently the majority of clinical scans performed. The purpose of this study was to extend the SSDE concept to account for TCM by investigating the feasibility of using anatomic and organ specific regions of scanner output to improve accuracy of dose estimates.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-nine adult abdomen/pelvis and 32 chest scans from clinically indicated CT exams acquired on a multidetector CT using TCM were obtained with Institutional Review Board approval for generating voxelized models. Along with image data, raw projection data were obtained to extract TCM functions for use in Monte Carlo simulations. Patient size was calculated using the effective diameter described in TG 204. In addition, the scanner-reported CTDI(vo)l (CTDI(vol),global) was obtained for each patient, which is based on the average tube current across the entire scan. For the abdomen/pelvis scans, liver, spleen, and kidneys were manually segmented from the patient datasets; for the chest scans, lungs and for female models only, glandular breast tissue were segmented. For each patient organ doses were estimated using Monte Carlo Methods. To investigate the utility of regional measures of scanner output, regional and organ anatomic boundaries were identified from image data and used to calculate regional and organ-specific average tube current values. From these regional and organ-specific averages, CTDI(vol) values, referred to as regional and organ-specific CTDI(vol), were calculated for each patient. Using an approach similar to TG 204, all CTDI(vol) values were used to normalize simulated organ doses; and the ability of each normalized dose to correlate with patient size was investigated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For all five organs, the correlations with patient size increased when organ doses were normalized by regional and organ-specific CTDI(vol) values. For example, when estimating dose to the liver, CTDI(vol),global yielded a R(2) value of 0.26, which improved to 0.77 and 0.86, when using the regional and organ-specific CTDI(vol) for abdomen and liver, respectively. For breast dose, the global CTDI(vol) yielded a R(2) value of 0.08, which improved to 0.58 and 0.83, when using the regional and organ-specific CTDI(vol) for chest and breasts, respectively. The R(2) values also increased once the thoracic models were separated for the analysis into females and males, indicating differences between genders in this region not explained by a simple measure of effective diameter.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This work demonstrated the utility of regional and organ-specific CTDI(vol) as normalization factors when using TCM. It was demonstrated that CTDI(vol),global is not an effective normalization factor in TCM exams where attenuation (and therefore tube current) varies considerably throughout the scan, such as abdomen/pelvis and even thorax. These exams can be more accurately assessed for dose using regional CTDI(vol) descriptors that account for local variations in scanner output present when TCM is employed.
authors: Department of Biomedical Physics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, USA. mkhatonabadi@mednet.ucla.edu
authors: Maryam
authors: M
authors: Khatonabadi
authors: Hyun J
authors: HJ
authors: Kim
authors: Peiyun
authors: P
authors: Lu
authors: Kyle L
authors: KL
authors: McMillan
authors: Chris H
authors: CH
authors: Cagnon
authors: John J
authors: JJ
authors: DeMarco
authors: Michael F
authors: MF
authors: McNitt-Gray
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008954:Models, Biological; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed
references: Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6):3456-65
references: 22755725
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jun;36(6):2154-64
references: 19610304
references: Med Phys. 1998 Jan;25(1):1-11
references: 9472820
references: Phys Med Biol. 2003 Aug 21;48(16):2645-63
references: 12974580
references: Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):565-71
references: 16040914
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011 Sep;147(1-2):314-6
references: 21778155
references: Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):311-6
references: 21502387
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Nov 21;56(22):7017-31
references: 22016026
references: Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6764-71
references: 23127070
references: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Oct 21;57(20):6309-26
references: 22990300
references: Med Phys. 2007 Apr;34(4):1364-71
references: 17500467
references: Med Phys. 1999 Nov;26(11):2235-47
references: 10587204
references: Radiology. 2008 Oct;249(1):220-7
references: 18796678
references: Radiographics. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):503-12
references: 16549613
references: Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6772-8
references: 23127071
references: Med Phys. 1999 Nov;26(11):2248-53
references: 10587205
references: Med Phys. 1981 Jul-Aug;8(4):488-95
references: 7322067
references: Eur Radiol. 1999;9(2):323-28
references: 10101657
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011 Jan;143(1):81-7
references: 21068019
references: Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6):2985-96
references: 22755683
references: Health Phys. 2008 Nov;95(5):502-7
references: 18849682
references: Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):649-57
references: 15498896
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Oct 21;55(20):6243-61
references: 20885020
references: Med Phys. 2012 Dec;39(12):7368-78
references: 23231286
references: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Sep 7;50(17):3989-4004
references: 16177525
references: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Feb 7;54(3):497-512
references: 19124953
references: Med Phys. 2006 May;33(5):1190-1
references: 16752553
references: Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):5212-28
references: 22894446
references: J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(2):87-9
references: 20142079
references: Radiology. 2012 Aug;264(2):397-405
references: 22668563
references: Radiographics. 2002 Nov-Dec;22(6):1541-53
references: 12432127
references: Eur Radiol. 2000;10(2):391-4
references: 10663775
references: Phys Med Biol. 2007 May 7;52(9):2583-97
references: 17440254