Dose estimation of ultra-low-dose chest CT to different sized adult patients
To evaluate the effect of patient size on radiation dose for standard CT (SD-CT), ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) and two-view digital radiography (DR).
Dosimeters were distributed within the lungs of chest phantoms representing males of 65 kg and 82 kg (body mass indices 23 and 29). In contrast to SD-CT and DR which include automatic exposure control (AEC), the ULD scan employs a fixed mAs value. The phantoms were exposed to SD, ULD and DR while recording lung doses. Projected dose data were calculated from the phantoms. The resulting exposure settings were used in Monte Carlo programs to determine the effective dose for a standard-sized (BMI 24.2) adult male (170 cm/70 kg) and female (160 cm/59 kg). Patients previously examined by both ULD- and SD-CT were identified to determine post hoc size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs).
ULD-CT dose was inversely related to patient size; average lung doses summarised in terms of patient size BMI23/29 are 5.2/8.1 (SD-CT), 0.56/0.35 (ULD-CT) and 0.05/0.13 mGy (DR), while the effective doses for these techniques on a standard-sized male were 2.9, 0.16 and 0.03 mSv and 2.3, 0.247 and 0.024 mSv for a standard-sized female respectively. SSDEs for 15 patients (averages: BMI 26, range 18–37) averaged 5.5 mGy (3.6–10) for SD-CT and 0.35 mGy (0.42–0.27) for ULD-CT.
The effective doses for a standard-sized male and female examined by ULD-CT are (respectively) ~ 6%/~ 11% of SD-CT and ~ 5/~ 10 times higher than DR. ULD-CT gave a lower radiation dosage to larger patients than DR. AEC is warranted in ULD-CT for improved dose consistency.
• For standard-sized patients, ULD-CT dose level is ~ 6%/~ 11% of SD-CT, and ~ 5/~ 10 times higher than DR. For larger patients, ULD-CT is currently being used clinically at lower dose levels than DR.
• Using ULD-CT should greatly reduce the risk of late effects from ionising radiation.
• AEC in ULD-CT is desirable for increased consistency in patient dose.
KeywordsTomography Thoracic radiography Digital radiography Radiation dosage
Automatic exposure control
As low as reasonably achievable
Body mass index
Volume CT dose index
Dose length product
Size-specific dose estimate
The authors would like to thank Prof. Hans Dieter Nagel at the Science & Technology for Radiology, Germany; Dr. Teemu Siiskonen, at the Finnish Radiation Authority (STUK); and Dr. Yoko Kagaku, Kyoto Kagaku Co., Ltd., for their support and assistance with this project.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Tony Martin Svahn.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because only exposure data and parameter settings were extracted from examinations in retrospect, in addition to phantom data.
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because for this study because only exposure data and parameter settings were extracted from examinations in retrospect, in addition to phantom data.
• Observational and experimental
• Performed at one institution
- 4.National Research Council (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 245Google Scholar
- 5.International Commission on Radiological Protection (1975) Report of the Task Group on Reference Man. ICRP Publication 23. Pergamon Press, Oxford Adopted October 1974Google Scholar
- 15.Kyoto Kagaku Ltd. Multipurpose chest phantom N1 “LUNGMAN”. http://www.kyotokagaku.com/products/detail03/ph-1.html. Accessed 27 Oct 2018
- 16.Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K (1991) Survey of CT Practise in the UK. Part 2: dosimetric aspects (NRPB-R249). National Radiological Protection Borard, ChiltonGoogle Scholar
- 18.Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Sermovaa A (1997) PCXMC: a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations. Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
- 19.Cristy M, Eckerman K (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. Parts I-VII (ORNL/TM-8381). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, pp 1–74Google Scholar
- 20.Zankl M, Panzer W, Drexler G (1991) The calculation of dose from external photon exposures using reference human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods. VI. Organ doses from computed tomographic examinations. GSF-Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundtheit, Institut für Strahlenschutz, NeuherbergGoogle Scholar
- 21.International Committee on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):1–332Google Scholar
- 22.International Committee on Radiological Protection (1991) 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication No. 60. Pergamom, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 26.Fasola G, Belvedere O, Aita M et al (2007) Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer and pleural mesothelioma in an asbestos-exposed population: baseline results of a prospective, nonrandomized feasibility trial—an Alpe-Adria thoracic oncology multidisciplinary group study (ATOM 002). Oncologist 12(10):1215–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26(1):184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Naidu SG, Kriegshauser JS, Paden RG, He M, Wu Q, Hara AK (2014) Ultra-low-dose computed tomographic angiography with model-based iterative reconstruction compared with standard-dose imaging after endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective pilot study. Abdom Imaging 39(6):1297–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar