skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-SPS-03: Direct Measurement of Organ Doses Resulting From Head and Cervical Spine Trauma CT Protocols

Abstract

Purpose: This retrospective study analyzes the exposure history of emergency department (ED) patients undergoing head and cervical spine trauma computed tomography (CT) studies. This study investigated dose levels received by trauma patients and addressed any potential concerns regarding radiation dose issues. Methods: Under proper IRB approval, a cohort of 300 trauma cases of head and cervical spine trauma CT scans received in the ED was studied. The radiological image viewing software of the hospital was used to view patient images and image data. The following parameters were extracted: the imaging history of patients, the reported dose metrics from the scanner including the volumetric CT Dose Index (CTDIvol) and Dose Length Product (DLP). A postmortem subject was scanned using the same scan techniques utilized in a standard clinical head and cervical spine trauma CT protocol with 120 kVp and 280 mAs. The CTDIvol was recorded for the subject and the organ doses were measured using optically stimulated luminescent (OSL) dosimeters. Typical organ doses to the brain, thyroid, lens, salivary glands, and skin, based on the cadaver studies, were then calculated and reported for the cohort. Results: The CTDIvol reported by the CT scanner was 25.5 mGy for the postmortem subject. Themore » average CTDIvol from the patient cohort was 34.1 mGy. From these metrics, typical average organ doses in mGy were found to be: Brain (44.57), Thyroid (33.40), Lens (82.45), Salivary Glands (61.29), Skin (47.50). The imaging history of the cohort showed that on average trauma patients received 26.1 scans over a lifetime. Conclusion: The average number of scans received on average by trauma ED patients shows that radiation doses in trauma patients may be a concern. Available dose tracking software would be helpful to track doses in trauma ED patients, highlighting the importance of minimizing unnecessary scans and keeping doses ALARA.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22624420
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ALARA; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; BRAIN; COMPUTER CODES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CRYSTALLINE LENS; DOSEMETERS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGES; INJURIES; LUMINESCENCE; PARTICLE TRACKS; RADIATION DOSES; SALIVARY GLANDS; SKIN; THYROID; VERTEBRAE

Citation Formats

Carranza, C, Lipnharski, I, Quails, N, Correa, N, Rill, L, and Arreola, M. SU-F-SPS-03: Direct Measurement of Organ Doses Resulting From Head and Cervical Spine Trauma CT Protocols. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955678.
Carranza, C, Lipnharski, I, Quails, N, Correa, N, Rill, L, & Arreola, M. SU-F-SPS-03: Direct Measurement of Organ Doses Resulting From Head and Cervical Spine Trauma CT Protocols. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955678.
Carranza, C, Lipnharski, I, Quails, N, Correa, N, Rill, L, and Arreola, M. 2016. "SU-F-SPS-03: Direct Measurement of Organ Doses Resulting From Head and Cervical Spine Trauma CT Protocols". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955678.
@article{osti_22624420,
title = {SU-F-SPS-03: Direct Measurement of Organ Doses Resulting From Head and Cervical Spine Trauma CT Protocols},
author = {Carranza, C and Lipnharski, I and Quails, N and Correa, N and Rill, L and Arreola, M},
abstractNote = {Purpose: This retrospective study analyzes the exposure history of emergency department (ED) patients undergoing head and cervical spine trauma computed tomography (CT) studies. This study investigated dose levels received by trauma patients and addressed any potential concerns regarding radiation dose issues. Methods: Under proper IRB approval, a cohort of 300 trauma cases of head and cervical spine trauma CT scans received in the ED was studied. The radiological image viewing software of the hospital was used to view patient images and image data. The following parameters were extracted: the imaging history of patients, the reported dose metrics from the scanner including the volumetric CT Dose Index (CTDIvol) and Dose Length Product (DLP). A postmortem subject was scanned using the same scan techniques utilized in a standard clinical head and cervical spine trauma CT protocol with 120 kVp and 280 mAs. The CTDIvol was recorded for the subject and the organ doses were measured using optically stimulated luminescent (OSL) dosimeters. Typical organ doses to the brain, thyroid, lens, salivary glands, and skin, based on the cadaver studies, were then calculated and reported for the cohort. Results: The CTDIvol reported by the CT scanner was 25.5 mGy for the postmortem subject. The average CTDIvol from the patient cohort was 34.1 mGy. From these metrics, typical average organ doses in mGy were found to be: Brain (44.57), Thyroid (33.40), Lens (82.45), Salivary Glands (61.29), Skin (47.50). The imaging history of the cohort showed that on average trauma patients received 26.1 scans over a lifetime. Conclusion: The average number of scans received on average by trauma ED patients shows that radiation doses in trauma patients may be a concern. Available dose tracking software would be helpful to track doses in trauma ED patients, highlighting the importance of minimizing unnecessary scans and keeping doses ALARA.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955678},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Conventional radiography has been for decades the standard method of evaluation for cervical spine trauma patients. However, currently available helical multidetector CT scanners allow multiplanar reconstruction of images, leading to increased diagnostic accuracy. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative benefit/risk ratio between cervical spine CT and cervical spine radiography and between cervical spine CT and cervical spine radiography, followed by CT as an adjunct for positive findings. A decision analysis model for the determination of the optimum imaging technique was developed. The sensitivity and specificity of CT and radiography were obtained by dedicated meta-analysis. Lifetime attributablemore » risk of mortal cancer from CT and radiography was calculated using updated organ-specific risk coefficients and organ-absorbed doses. Patient organ doses from radiography were calculated using Monte Carlo techniques, simulated exposures performed on an anthropomorphic phantom, and thermoluminescence dosimetry. A prospective patient study was performed regarding helical CT scans of the cervical spine. Patient doses were calculated based on the dose-length-product values and Monte Carlo-based CT dosimetry software program. Three groups of patient risk for cervical spine fracture were incorporated in the decision model on the basis of hypothetical trauma mechanism and clinical findings. Radiation effects were assessed separately for males and females for four age groups (20, 40, 60, and 80 yr old). Effective dose from radiography amounts to 0.050 mSv and from a typical CT scan to 3.8 mSv. The use of CT in a hypothetical cohort of 10{sup 6} patients prevents approximately 130 incidents of paralysis in the low risk group (a priori fracture probability of 0.5%), 500 in the moderate risk group (a priori fracture probability of 2%), and 5100 in the high risk group (a priori fracture probability of 20%). The expense of this CT-based prevention is 15-32 additional radiogenic lethal cancer incidents. According to the decision model calculations, the use of CT is more favorable over the use of radiography alone or radiography with CT by a factor of 13, for low risk 20 yr old patients, to a factor of 23, for high risk patients younger than 80 yr old. The radiography/CT imaging strategy slightly outperforms plain radiography for high and moderate risk patients. Regardless of the patient age, sex, and fracture risk, the higher diagnostic accuracy obtained by the CT examination counterbalances the increase in dose compared to plain radiography or radiography followed by CT only for positive radiographs and renders CT utilization justified and the radiographic screening redundant.« less
  • Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate various approaches for assessing patient organ doses resulting from radiotherapy cone-beam CT (CBCT), by the use of thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) measurements in anthropomorphic phantoms, a Monte Carlo based dose calculation software, and different dose indicators as presently defined. Methods: Dose evaluations were performed on a CBCT Elekta XVI (Elekta, Crawley, UK) for different protocols and anatomical regions. The first part of the study focuses on using PCXMC software (PCXMC 2.0, STUK, Helsinki, Finland) for calculating organ doses, adapting the input parameters to simulate the exposure geometry, and beam dose distribution inmore » an appropriate way. The calculated doses were compared to readouts of TLDs placed in an anthropomorphic Rando phantom. After this validation, the software was used for analyzing organ dose variability associated with patients’ differences in size and gender. At the same time, various dose indicators were evaluated: kerma area product (KAP), cumulative air-kerma at the isocenter (K{sub air}), cone-beam dose index, and central cumulative dose. The latter was evaluated in a single phantom and in a stack of three adjacent computed tomography dose index phantoms. Based on the different dose indicators, a set of coefficients was calculated to estimate organ doses for a range of patient morphologies, using their equivalent diameters. Results: Maximum organ doses were about 1 mGy for head and neck and 25 mGy for chest and pelvis protocols. The differences between PCXMC and TLDs doses were generally below 10% for organs within the field of view and approximately 15% for organs at the boundaries of the radiation beam. When considering patient size and gender variability, differences in organ doses up to 40% were observed especially in the pelvic region; for the organs in the thorax, the maximum differences ranged between 20% and 30%. Phantom dose indexes provided better correlation with organ doses than K{sub air} and KAP, with average ratios ranging between 0.9 and 1.1 and variations for different organs and protocols below 20%. The triple phantom setup allowed us to take into account scatter dose contributions, but nonetheless, the correlation with the evaluated organ doses was not improved with this method. Conclusions: The simulation of rotational geometry and of asymmetric beam distribution by means of PCXMC 2.0 enabled us to determine patient organ doses depending on weight, height and gender. Alternatively, the measurement of an in phantom dose indicator combined with proper correction coefficients can be a useful tool for a first dose estimation of in-field organs. The data and coefficients provided in this study can be applied to any patient undergoing a scan by an Elekta XVI equipment.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the organ doses of pediatric patients who undergoing head CT scan using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and compare it with measurements in anthropomorphic child phantom.. Methods: A ten years old children voxel phantom was developed from CT images, the voxel size of the phantom was 2mm*2mm*2mm. Organ doses from head CT scan were simulated using MCNPX software, 180 detectors were placed in the voxel phantom to tally the doses of the represented tissues or organs. When performing the simulation, 120 kVp and 88 mA were selected as the scan parameters. The scan range covered from the topmore » of the head to the end of the chain, this protocol was used at CT simulator for radiotherapy. To validate the simulated results, organ doses were measured with radiophotoluminescence (RPL) detectors, placed in the 28 organs of the 10 years old CIRS ATOM phantom. Results: The organ doses results matched well between MC simulation and phantom measurements. The eyes dose was showed to be as expected the highest organ dose: 28.11 mGy by simulation and 27.34 mGy by measurement respectively. Doses for organs not included in the scan volume were much lower than those included in the scan volume, thymus doses were observed more than 10 mGy due the CT protocol for radiotherapy covered more body part than routine head CT scan. Conclusion: As the eyes are superficial organs, they may receive the highest radiation dose during the CT scan. Considering the relatively high radio sensitivity, using shielding material or organ based tube current modulation technique should be encouraged to reduce the eye radiation risks. Scan range was one of the most important factors that affects the organ doses during the CT scan. Use as short as reasonably possible scan range should be helpful to reduce the patient radiation dose. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(11475047)« less
  • Purpose: Radiation exposure from computed tomography (CT) to the public has increased the concern among radiation protection professionals. Being able to accurately assess the radiation dose patients receive during CT procedures is a crucial step in the management of CT dose. Currently, various computational anthropomorphic phantoms are used to assess radiation dose by different research groups. It is desirable to better understand how the dose results are affected by different choices of phantoms. In this study, the authors assessed the uncertainties in CT dose and risk estimation associated with different types of computational phantoms for a selected group of representativemore » CT protocols. Methods: Routinely used CT examinations were categorized into ten body and three neurological examination categories. Organ doses, effective doses, risk indices, and conversion coefficients to effective dose and risk index (k and q factors, respectively) were estimated for these examinations for a clinical CT system (LightSpeed VCT, GE Healthcare). Four methods were used, each employing a different type of reference phantoms. The first and second methods employed a Monte Carlo program previously developed and validated in our laboratory. In the first method, the reference male and female extended cardiac-torso (XCAT) phantoms were used, which were initially created from the Visible Human data and later adjusted to match organ masses defined in ICRP publication 89. In the second method, the reference male and female phantoms described in ICRP publication 110 were used, which were initially developed from tomographic data of two patients and later modified to match ICRP 89 organ masses. The third method employed a commercial dosimetry spreadsheet (ImPACT group, London, England) with its own hermaphrodite stylized phantom. In the fourth method, another widely used dosimetry spreadsheet (CT-Expo, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany) was employed together with its associated male and female stylized phantoms. Results: For fully irradiated organs, average coefficients of variation (COV) ranged from 0.07 to 0.22 across the four male phantoms and from 0.06 to 0.18 across the four female phantoms; for partially irradiated organs, average COV ranged from 0.13 to 0.30 across the four male phantoms and from 0.15 to 0.30 across the four female phantoms. Doses to the testes, breasts, and esophagus showed large variations between phantoms. COV for gender-averaged effective dose and k factor ranged from 0.03 to 0.23 and from 0.06 to 0.30, respectively. COV for male risk index and q factor ranged from 0.06 to 0.30 and from 0.05 to 0.36, respectively; COV for female risk index and q factor ranged from 0.06 to 0.49 and from 0.07 to 0.54, respectively. Conclusions: Despite closely matched organ mass, total body weight, and height, large differences in organ dose exist due to variation in organ location, spatial distribution, and dose approximation method. Dose differences for fully irradiated radiosensitive organs were much smaller than those for partially irradiated organs. Weighted dosimetry quantities including effective dose, male risk indices, k factors, and male q factors agreed well across phantoms. The female risk indices and q factors varied considerably across phantoms.« less
  • Purpose: With 54{sup o} of freedom from the skull to mandible to C7, ensuring adequate immobilization for head-and-neck radiotherapy (RT) is complex. We quantify variations in skull, mandible, and cervical spine movement between RT sessions. Methods and Materials: Twenty-three sequential head-and-neck RT patients underwent serial computed tomography. Patients underwent planned rescanning at 11, 22, and 33 fractions for a total of 93 scans. Coordinates of multiple bony elements of the skull, mandible, and cervical spine were used to calculate rotational and translational changes of bony anatomy compared with the original planning scan. Results: Mean translational and rotational variations on rescanningmore » were negligible, but showed a wide range. Changes in scoliosis and lordosis of the cervical spine between fractions showed similar variability. There was no correlation between positional variation and fraction number and no strong correlation with weight loss or skin separation. Semi-independent rotational and translation movement of the skull in relation to the lower cervical spine was shown. Positioning variability measured by means of vector displacement was largest in the mandible and lower cervical spine. Conclusions: Although only small overall variations in position between head-and-neck RT sessions exist on average, there is significant random variation in patient positioning of the skull, mandible, and cervical spine elements. Such variation is accentuated in the mandible and lower cervical spine. These random semirigid variations in positioning of the skull and spine point to a need for improved immobilization and/or confirmation of patient positioning in RT of the head and neck.« less