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

Title: SU-F-I-37: How Fat Distribution and Table Height Affect Estimates of Patient Size in CT Scanning: A Phantom Study

Abstract

Purpose: Localizer projection radiographs acquired prior to CT scans are used to estimate patient size, affecting the function of Automatic Tube Current Modulation (ATCM) and hence CTDIvol and SSDE. Due to geometric effects, the projected patient size varies with scanner table height and with the orientation of the localizer (AP versus PA). This study sought to determine if patient size estimates made from localizer scans is affected by variations in fat distribution, specifically when the widest part of the patient is not at the geometric center of the patient. Methods: Lipid gel bolus material was wrapped around an anthropomorphic phantom to simulate two different body mass distributions. The first represented a patient with fairly rigid fat and had a generally oval shape. The second was bell-shaped, representing corpulent patients more susceptible to gravity’s lustful tug. Each phantom configuration was imaged using an AP localizer and then a PA localizer. This was repeated at various scanner table heights. The width of the phantom was measured from the localizer and diagnostic images using in-house software. Results: 1) The projected phantom width varied up to 39% as table height changed.2) At some table heights, the width of the phantom, designed to represent largermore » patients, exceeded the localizer field of view, resulting in an underestimation of the phantom width.3) The oval-shaped phantom approached a normalized phantom width of 1 at a table height several centimeters lower (AP localizer) or higher (PA localizer) than did the bell-shaped phantom. Conclusion: Accurate estimation of patient size from localizer scans is dependent on patient positioning with respect to scanner isocenter and is limited in large patients. Further, patient size is more accurately measured on projection images if the widest part of the patient, rather than the geometric center of the patient, is positioned at scanner isocenter.« less

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22626797
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; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER CODES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; GELS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGES; LIPIDS; MASS DISTRIBUTION; PATIENTS; PHANTOMS

Citation Formats

Silosky, M, and Marsh, R. SU-F-I-37: How Fat Distribution and Table Height Affect Estimates of Patient Size in CT Scanning: A Phantom Study. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955865.
Silosky, M, & Marsh, R. SU-F-I-37: How Fat Distribution and Table Height Affect Estimates of Patient Size in CT Scanning: A Phantom Study. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955865.
Silosky, M, and Marsh, R. Wed . "SU-F-I-37: How Fat Distribution and Table Height Affect Estimates of Patient Size in CT Scanning: A Phantom Study". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955865.
@article{osti_22626797,
title = {SU-F-I-37: How Fat Distribution and Table Height Affect Estimates of Patient Size in CT Scanning: A Phantom Study},
author = {Silosky, M and Marsh, R},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Localizer projection radiographs acquired prior to CT scans are used to estimate patient size, affecting the function of Automatic Tube Current Modulation (ATCM) and hence CTDIvol and SSDE. Due to geometric effects, the projected patient size varies with scanner table height and with the orientation of the localizer (AP versus PA). This study sought to determine if patient size estimates made from localizer scans is affected by variations in fat distribution, specifically when the widest part of the patient is not at the geometric center of the patient. Methods: Lipid gel bolus material was wrapped around an anthropomorphic phantom to simulate two different body mass distributions. The first represented a patient with fairly rigid fat and had a generally oval shape. The second was bell-shaped, representing corpulent patients more susceptible to gravity’s lustful tug. Each phantom configuration was imaged using an AP localizer and then a PA localizer. This was repeated at various scanner table heights. The width of the phantom was measured from the localizer and diagnostic images using in-house software. Results: 1) The projected phantom width varied up to 39% as table height changed.2) At some table heights, the width of the phantom, designed to represent larger patients, exceeded the localizer field of view, resulting in an underestimation of the phantom width.3) The oval-shaped phantom approached a normalized phantom width of 1 at a table height several centimeters lower (AP localizer) or higher (PA localizer) than did the bell-shaped phantom. Conclusion: Accurate estimation of patient size from localizer scans is dependent on patient positioning with respect to scanner isocenter and is limited in large patients. Further, patient size is more accurately measured on projection images if the widest part of the patient, rather than the geometric center of the patient, is positioned at scanner isocenter.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955865},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}