Control of Organ and Tissue Doses to Patients During Computed Tomography

  • K. A. VerenichEmail author
  • V. F. Minenko
  • K. O. Makarevich
  • A. A. Khrutchinsky
  • S. A. Kutsen
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 227)


Computed tomography is a dose-intensive type of medical imaging. Radiation doses to the patient during Computed tomography are estimated using Monte-Carlo simulations. Reference computational phantoms of adult human are used for this purpose. The simulation takes into account the parameters of radiation and the position of the beam relative to phantom. Medical radiation is often highly anisotropic and is collimated only to the area of interest. The effect from exposure of critical organs and tissues to radiation is not characterized by sole effective dose. The modern methods of estimation of the doses to patients during Computed Tomography are reviewed. According to preliminary calculations, the expected effect from the bowtie filter is much lower than expected.



The authors wish to thank the State Program of Scientific Research “Convergence-2020” (project 3.08) and the Belarusian Republican Fund Fundamental Research (grant F16 M-037) for the financial support.


  1. 1.
    R.G. Grainger et al. (eds.), Grainger & Allison’s Diagnostic Radiology: A Textbook of Medical Imaging, P177 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.A. Statkiewicz Sherer, Radiation Protection in Medical Radiography, P374 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ICRP Publication 102, Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). Ann. ICRP 37(1), 1–79 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Ghita, Computer Simulations to Estimate Organ Doses From Clinically Validated Cardiac, Neuro, and Pediatric Protocols for Multiple Detector Computed Tomography Scanners, P176 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ICRP Publication 87, Managing patient dose in computed tomography. Ann. ICRP 30, 1–45 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ICRP Publication 129, Radiological protection in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Ann. ICRP 44(1), 1–127 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly. United nations (2000), 495pGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Lee, J. Lee, Reference Korean human models: past, present, and future, in The Monte Carlo method: versatility unbounded in a dynamic computing world, Chattanooga, 17–21 April 2005Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B.Q. Zhang et al., CNMAN: a Chinese adult male voxel phantom constructed from color photographs of a visible anatomical data set. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 124, 130 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ICRP Publication 103, The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on radiological protection. Ann. ICRP 37(2–4), 1–332 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W.A. Kalender, Dose in x-ray computed tomography. Phys. Med. Biol. 59, R129–R150 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.H. McCollough, S. Leng, L. Yu, D.C. Cody, J.M. Boone, M.F. McNitt-Gray, CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology 259, 311–316 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Mainegra-Hing, I. Kawrakow, Fast Monte Carlo calculation of scatter corrections for CBCT images. J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 102, 012017 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.T.M. Jansen, P.C. Shrimpton, M. Zankl, Development of PC based Monte Carlo simulations for the calculation of scanner-specific normalized organ doses from CT, in Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics, Computational Methods & Reactor Physics (M&C 2009), Saratoga Springs, New York, 3–7 May 2009Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Deak, M. van Straten, P.C. Shrimpton, M. Zankl, W.A. Kalender, Validation of a Monte Carlo tool for patient-specific dose simulations in multi-slice computed tomography. Eur. Radiol. 18, 759–772 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Kramer, V.F. Cassola, H.J. Khoury, CALDose_XP online: real-time Monte Carlo calculation of paediatric organ absorbed doses and radiation risks via the Internet, in Proceedings of Regional Congress of IRPA on Radiological and Nuclear Safety, Rio de Janeiro, 14–19 April 2013Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Lee, K.P. Kim, W.E. Bolch, B.E. Moroz, L. Folio, NCICT: a computational solution to estimate organ doses for pediatric and adult patients undergoing CT scans. J. Radiol. Prot. 35, 891–909 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Dimov, I. Tsanev, [OA202] Recent update of typical effective doses received by patients at diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures and its impact on assessment of collective effective dose to population in Bulgaria. Phys. Med. Eur. J. Med. Phys. 52, 78 (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W.A. Kalender, B. Schmidt, M. Zankl, M. Schmidt, A PC program for estimating organ dose and effective dose values in computed tomography. Eur. Radiol. 9, 555–562 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    X. Li, E. Samei, W.P. Segars, G.M. Sturgeon, J.G. Colsher, G. Toncheva, T.T. Yoshizumi, D.P. Frush, Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: Part I. Development and validation of a Monte Carlo program. Med. Phys. 38, 397–407 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Cranley, B.J. Gilmore, G.W.A. Fogarty, L. Desponds, IPEM report 78: catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data (CD-Rom Edition)/Electronic Version prepared by D. Sutton (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Nowotny, A. Höfer, Ein Programm für die Berechnung von diagnostischen Roentgenspektren. Fortschr Roentgenstr 142, 685–689 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G.G. Poludniowski, P.M. Evans, Calculation of x-ray spectra emerging from an x-ray tube. Part I. electron penetration characteristics in x-ray targets. Med. Phys. 34(6, Part1), 2164–2174 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.M. Boone, J.A. Seibert, An accurate method for computer-generating tungsten anode X-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV. Med. Phys. 24, 1661–1670 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. A. Verenich
    • 1
    Email author
  • V. F. Minenko
    • 1
  • K. O. Makarevich
    • 1
  • A. A. Khrutchinsky
    • 1
  • S. A. Kutsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Nuclear ProblemsBelarusian State UniversityMinskBelarus

Personalised recommendations