title: Attenuation-based size metric for estimating organ dose to patients undergoing tube current modulated CT exams.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Task Group 204 introduced effective diameter (ED) as the patient size metric used to correlate size-specific-dose-estimates. However, this size metric fails to account for patient attenuation properties and has been suggested to be replaced by an attenuation-based size metric, water equivalent diameter (DW). The purpose of this study is to investigate different size metrics, effective diameter, and water equivalent diameter, in combination with regional descriptions of scanner output to establish the most appropriate size metric to be used as a predictor for organ dose in tube current modulated CT exams.
  
  
  METHODS
  101 thoracic and 82 abdomen/pelvis scans from clinically indicated CT exams were collected retrospectively from a multidetector row CT (Sensation 64, Siemens Healthcare) with Institutional Review Board approval to generate voxelized patient models. Fully irradiated organs (lung and breasts in thoracic scans and liver, kidneys, and spleen in abdominal scans) were segmented and used as tally regions in Monte Carlo simulations for reporting organ dose. Along with image data, raw projection data were collected to obtain tube current information for simulating tube current modulation scans using Monte Carlo methods. Additionally, previously described patient size metrics [ED, DW, and approximated water equivalent diameter (DWa)] were calculated for each patient and reported in three different ways: a single value averaged over the entire scan, a single value averaged over the region of interest, and a single value from a location in the middle of the scan volume. Organ doses were normalized by an appropriate mAs weighted CTDIvol to reflect regional variation of tube current. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the correlations between normalized organ doses and each size metric.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For the abdominal organs, the correlations between normalized organ dose and size metric were overall slightly higher for all three differently (global, regional, and middle slice) reported DW and DWa than they were for ED, but the differences were not statistically significant. However, for lung dose, computed correlations using water equivalent diameter calculated in the middle of the image data (DW,middle) and averaged over the low attenuating region of lung (DW,regional) were statistically significantly higher than correlations of normalized lung dose with ED.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  To conclude, effective diameter and water equivalent diameter are very similar in abdominal regions; however, their difference becomes noticeable in lungs. Water equivalent diameter, specifically reported as a regional average and middle of scan volume, was shown to be better predictors of lung dose. Therefore, an attenuation-based size metric (water equivalent diameter) is recommended because it is more robust across different anatomic regions. Additionally, it was observed that the regional size metric reported as a single value averaged over a region of interest and the size metric calculated from a single slice/image chosen from the middle of the scan volume are highly correlated for these specific patient models and scan types.
authors: Departments of Biomedical Physics and Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024.
authors: Maryam
authors: M
authors: Bostani
authors: Departments of Biomedical Physics and Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024.
authors: Kyle
authors: K
authors: McMillan
authors: Departments of Biomedical Physics and Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024.
authors: Peiyun
authors: P
authors: Lu
authors: Departments of Biomedical Physics and Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024.
authors: Hyun J
authors: HJ
authors: Kim
authors: Departments of Biomedical Physics and Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024.
authors: Chris H
authors: CH
authors: Cagnon
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095.
authors: John J
authors: JJ
authors: DeMarco
authors: Departments of Biomedical Physics and Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024.
authors: Michael F
authors: MF
authors: McNitt-Gray
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011860:Radiography, Abdominal; D013902:Radiography, Thoracic; D011874:Radiometry; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed
references: Med Phys. 1998 Jan;25(1):1-11
references: 9472820
references: Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6772-8
references: 23127071
references: Phys Med Biol. 2003 Aug 21;48(16):2645-63
references: 12974580
references: Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):565-71
references: 16040914
references: Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6764-71
references: 23127070
references: Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):5212-28
references: 22894446
references: Radiology. 1997 May;203(2):417-22
references: 9114097
references: Radiology. 2008 Oct;249(1):220-7
references: 18796678
references: Med Phys. 2007 Jul;34(7):3093-101
references: 17822016
references: Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6):3456-65
references: 22755725
references: Med Phys. 2010 Apr;37(4):1816-25
references: 20443504
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jun;36(6):2154-64
references: 19610304
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. 2000 May;27(5):838-44
references: 10841385
references: Phys Med Biol. 2007 May 7;52(9):2583-97
references: 17440254
references: Med Phys. 2013 May;40(5):051903
references: 23635273
references: Cancer Inform. 2007;4:25-31
references: 19390662