Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The effective and water-equivalent diameters as geometrical size functions for estimating CT dose in the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic regions Cover

The effective and water-equivalent diameters as geometrical size functions for estimating CT dose in the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic regions

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
Volume 27 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)
By: Winda Kusuma Dewi,  Choirul Anam,  Eko Hidayanto,  Arrum Nitasari and  Geoff Dougherty  
Open Access
|Sep 2021

References

  1. 1. Ginat DT, Gupta R. Advances in computed tomography imaging technology. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2014;16:431-53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-121813-11360110.1146/annurev-bioeng-121813-11360125014788
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. 2. Tabari A, Lo Gullo R, Murugan V, Otrakji A, Digumarthy S, Kalra M. Recent advances in computed tomographic technology. J Thorac Imaging. 2017;32(2):89-100. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.000000000000025810.1097/RTI.000000000000025828221262
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. 3. Romans LE. Computed tomography for technologists: A comprehensive text, second edition. Computed Tomography for Technologists: A Comprehensive Text. 2011.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. 4. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G, McLean D. Volume computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol) and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) for tube current modulation (TCM) in CT scanning. Int J Radiat Res. 2018;16(3):289-97.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. 5. Khan A, Khosa F, Nasir K, Yassin A, Clouse ME. Comparison of radiation dose and image quality: 320-MDCT versus 64-MDCT coronary angiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):163-8. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.525010.2214/AJR.10.5250329428521701026
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. 6. NHS England. Diagnostic imaging dataset annual statistical. NHS Engl Internet.. 2020;1–29. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Annual-Statistical-Release-2019-20-PDF-1.4MB.pdf
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. 7. Juliusson G, Thorvaldsdottir B, Kristjansson JM, Hannesson P. Diagnostic imaging trends in the emergency department: an extensive single-center experience. Acta Radiol Open. 2019;8(7):205846011986040. https://doi.org/10.1177/205846011986040410.1177/2058460119860404666984631392034
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. 8. Pola A, Corbella D, Righini A, et al. Computed tomography use in a large italian region: Trend analysis 2004-2014 of emergency and outpatient ct examinations in children and adults. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(6):2308-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5225-x10.1007/s00330-017-5225-x29318431
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. 9. Smith-Bindman R, Wang Y, Chu P, et al. International variation in radiation dose for computed tomography examinations: Prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019;364:k4931. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k493110.1136/bmj.k4931631408330602590
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. 10. Bauhs JA, Vrieze TJ, Primak AN, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH. CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. Radiographics. 2008;28(1):245-53. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.28107502410.1148/rg.28107502418203941
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. 11. Huda W, Mettler FA. Volume CT dose index and dose-length product displayed during CT: What good are they? Radiology. 2011;258(1):236-42. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.1010029710.1148/radiol.1010029720971777
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. 12. Anam C, Budi WS, Adi K, et al. Assessment of patient dose and noise level of clinical CT images: automated measurements. J Radiol Prot. 2019;39(3):783-93. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ab23cc10.1088/1361-6498/ab23cc31117064
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. 13. McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boone JM, McNitt-Gray MF. CT dose index and patient dose : They are not the same thing. Radiology. 2011;259(2):311-6. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.1110180010.1148/radiol.11101800307912021502387
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. 14. The Report of AAPM Task Group 204. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in paediatric and adult body CT examinations. 2011. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_204.pdf.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. 15. The Report of AAPM Task Group 220. Use of water equivalent diameter for calculating patient size and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in CT. 2014. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_220.pdf.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. 16. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G. Automated calculation of water-equivalent diameter (DW) based on AAPM task group 220. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(4):320-33. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.617110.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6171569005927455491
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. 17. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G. The evaluation of the effective diameter (Deff) calculation and its impact on the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). Atom Indonesia. 2017;43(1):55-60. https://doi.org/10.17146/aij.2017.61710.17146/aij.2017.617
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. 18. Gabusi M, Riccardi L, Aliberti C, Vio S, Paiusco M. Radiation dose in chest CT: Assessment of size-specific dose estimates based on water-equivalent correction. Phys Med. 2016;32(2):393-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.12.00810.1016/j.ejmp.2015.12.00826781588
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. 19. Burton CS, Szczykutowicz TP. Evaluation of AAPM reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water-equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(1):228-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.1222310.1002/acm2.12223576801429178549
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. 20. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I. Automated estimation of patient’s size from 3D image of patient for size specific dose estimates (SSDE). Adv Sci Eng Med. 2015;7(10):892-6. https://doi.org/10.1166/asem.2015.178010.1166/asem.2015.1780
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. 21. Brady SL, Kaufman RA. Investigation of American Association of Physicists in medicine report 204 size-specific dose estimates for pediatric CT implementation. Radiology. 2012;265(3):832-40. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.1212013110.1148/radiol.1212013123093679
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. 22. Pourjabbar S, Singh S, Padole A, Saini A, Blake MA, Kalra M. Size-specific dose estimates: localizer or transverse abdominal computed tomography images? World J Radiol. 2014;6(5):210-7. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i5.21010.4329/wjr.v6.i5.210403754724876925
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. 23. Tsalafoutas IA, Kharita MH, Al-Naemi H, Kalra MK. Radiation dose monitoring in computed tomography: Status, options and limitations. Phys Med. 2020;79:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.08.02010.1016/j.ejmp.2020.08.02032980754
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. 24. Juszczyk J, Badura P, Czajkowska J, et al. Automated size-specific dose estimates using deep learning image processing. Med Image Anal. 2021;68:101898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020.10189810.1016/j.media.2020.10189833248330
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. 25. Anam C, Fujibuchi T, Toyoda T, et al. A simple method for calibrating pixel values of the CT localizer radiograph for calculating water-equivalent diameter and size-specific dose estimate. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2018;179:158-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncx24110.1093/rpd/ncx24129136233
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. 26. Mihailidis D, Tsapaki V, Tomara P. A simple manual method to estimate water-equivalent diameter for calculating size-specific dose estimate in chest computed tomography. Br J Radiol. 2020;93:20200473. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.2020047310.1259/bjr.20200473777470533058736
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. 27. Kleinman PL, Strauss KJ, Zurakowski D, Buckley KS, Taylor GA. Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children’s hospital. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(6):1611-9. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.377110.2214/AJR.09.377120489103
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. 28. Boone JM, Cooper VN, Nemzek WR, McGahan JP, Seibert JA. Monte Carlo assessment of computed tomography dose to tissue adjacent to the scanned volume. Med Phys. 2000;27(10):2393-407. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.131280910.1118/1.131280911099210
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. 29. ICRU. Patient dosimetry for X rays used in medical imaging. J ICRU. 2005;5(2):iv-vi. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru_ndi01810.1093/jicru_ndi018
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. 30. Kim S, Lee GH, Lee S, Park SH, Pyo HB, Cho JS. Body fat measurement in computed tomography image. Biomed Sci Instrum. 1999;35:303-8.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. 31. Anam C, Arif I, Haryanto F, et al. A simplified method for the water-equivalent diameter calculation to estimate patient dose in CT examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2019;185(1):42-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncy21410.1093/rpd/ncy21430508150
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/pjmpe-2021-0026 | Journal eISSN: 1898-0309 | Journal ISSN: 1425-4689
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 213 - 222
Published on: Sep 27, 2021
Published by: Polish Society of Medical Physics
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
anterior-posterior dimension,
lateral dimension,
effective diameter,
water-equivalent diameter,
computed tomography
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Biomedical engineering,
Physics,
Technical and applied physics,
Medical physics

© 2021 Winda Kusuma Dewi, Choirul Anam, Eko Hidayanto, Arrum Nitasari, Geoff Dougherty, published by Polish Society of Medical Physics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 27 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)Next article