Comparing organ and effective dose of various CT localizer acquisition strategies: A Monte Carlo study
Luuk J. Oostveen,Sjoerd Tunissen,Ioannis Sechopoulos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.17447
IF: 4.506
2024-10-13
Medical Physics
Abstract:Background CT examinations commonly start with the acquisition of one or two localizer radiographs (2D localizers). Recently, a manufacturer introduced the option to perform a heavily filtrated low‐dose helical scan as a localizer acquisition. To compare the dose of one or two 2D localizer acquisitions to the dose of a 3D localizer acquisition, one cannot simply compare the CTDIs of the different acquisition techniques, because of the use of different geometries and spectra. Purpose To compare the organ and effective dose for various CT localizer acquisition techniques. Methods A Geant4‐based Monte Carlo simulation, replicating a clinical wide‐area CT scanner was developed and validated. Various localizer acquisition strategies were simulated: Anterior‐posterior (AP) alone, PA alone, combined AP+lateral (LAT), and PA+LAT 2D localizers, and an Ag‐filtered 3D localizer acquisition. Validation was performed by measuring and simulating CTDI100 in both the periphery and the center of a CTDI phantom. The software was subsequently used to estimate organ and effective doses for localizers for chest, abdomen + pelvis, and the combined chest, abdomen, and pelvis exams. As representations of patients, eight ICRP computational phantoms (adult, 15‐, 10‐, and 5‐year, both male and female) and five female and five male XCAT phantoms with various BMIs were used. The dose of the various strategies was compared to the current clinically‐implemented AP+LAT localizers. Results CTDI100‐measurements and simulations within the CTDI‐phantom differs by a maximum of 8.1% and by an average of 0.9%. For chest, the average effective doses for AP, PA, AP+LAT, and the 3D localizer are 0.10, 0.07, 0.32, and 0.22 mSv, respectively. The organ dose to the breast varies the most across the various localizer strategies and is, on average, 0.17, 0.03, 0.44, and 0.33 mGy, in the same order. For abdomen, the average effective doses are 0.11, 0.07, 0.36, and 0.25 mSv for the AP, PA, AP+LAT and the 3D localizer, respectively. The organ dose to the stomach varies the most across the various localizers and is on average 0.14, 0.08, 0.58, and 0.30 mGy, in the same order. The PA‐only localizer results in the lowest organ dose to the most radiosensitive organs and the lowest effective dose. For the chest exam, compared to AP+LAT, the PA+LAT results in a 7 ± 2% effective dose reduction (mean ± standard deviation), while the 3D localizer results in a 21 ± 3% effective dose reduction. Using AP or PA only would result in 69 ± 2% and 76 ± 2% reduction, respectively. For the abdomen exam, also compared to AP+LAT, PA+LAT results in 6 ± 2% effective dose reduction, while the 3D localizer results in a 20 ± 5% reduction. Using AP or PA only would result in 69 ± 5% and 76 ± 4% reduction, respectively. Conclusions Using a PA localizer results in a lower or equivalent organ dose in the most radiosensitive organs, and a lower effective dose compared to an AP localizer for both chest and abdomen+pelvis exams. Compared to a two‐localizer strategy, the 3D localizer results in a lower effective dose in both the chest and abdomen+pelvis region.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging