The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency and impact of vertical mis‐centering on organ doses in computed tomography (CT) exams and evaluate the effect of a commercially available positioning compensation system (PCS). Mis‐centering frequency and magnitude was retrospectively measured in 300 patients examined with chest‐abdomen‐pelvis CT. Organ doses were measured in three postmortem subjects scanned on a CT scanner at nine different vertical table positions (maximum shift ± 4 cm). Organ doses were measured with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters inserted within organs. Regression analysis was performed to determine the correlation between organ doses and mis‐centering. Methods were repeated using a PCS that automatically detects the table offset to adjust tube current output accordingly. Clinical mis‐centering was >1 cm in 53% and 21% of patients in the vertical and lateral directions, respectively. The 1‐cm table shifts resulted in organ dose differences up to 8%, while 4‐cm shifts resulted in organ dose differences up to 35%. Organ doses increased linearly with superior table shifts for the lung, colon, uterus, ovaries, and skin (R2 = 0.73–0.99, P < 0.005). When the PCS was utilized, organ doses decreased with superior table shifts and dose differences were lower (average 5%, maximum 18%) than scans performed without PCS (average 9%, maximum 35%) at all table shifts. Mis‐centering occurs frequently in the clinic and has a significant effect on patient dose. While accurate patient positioning remains important for maintaining optimal imaging conditions, a PCS has been shown to reduce the effects of patient mis‐centering.

The organ dose equations developed represent a method for organ dose estimation from direct organ dose measurements that can estimate organ doses more accurately than the calculated SSDE, which provides a less-specific patient dose estimate.

Objective To compare organ specific radiation dose and image quality in kidney stone patients scanned with standard CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP-CT) to those scanned with low dose CT reconstructed with iterative techniques (IR-CT). Materials and Methods Over a one-year study period, adult kidney stone patients were retrospectively netted to capture the use of noncontrasted, stone protocol CT in one of six institutional scanners (four FBP and two IR). To limit potential CT-unit use bias, scans were included only from days when all six scanners were functioning. Organ dose was calculated using volumetric CT dose index and patient effective body diameter through validated conversion equations derived from previous cadaveric, dosimetry studies. Board-certified radiologists, blinded to CT algorithm type, assessed stone characteristics, study noise, and image quality of both techniques. Results FBP-CT (n=250) and IR-CT (n=90) groups were similar in regard to gender, race, body mass index (mean BMI = 30.3), and stone burden detected (mean size 5.4 ± 1.2 mm). Mean organ-specific dose (OSD) was 54-62% lower across all organs for IR-CT compared to FBP-CT with particularly reduced doses (up to 4.6-fold) noted in patients with normal BMI range. No differences were noted in radiological assessment of image quality or noise between the cohorts, and intrarater agreement was highly correlated for noise (AC2=0.873) and quality (AC2=0.874) between blinded radiologists. Conclusions Image quality and stone burden assessment were maintained between standard FBP and low dose IR groups, but IR-CT decreased mean OSD by 50%. Both urologists and radiologists should advocate for low dose CT, utilizing reconstructive protocols like IR, to reduce radiation exposure in their stone formers who undergo multiple CTs.

Purpose: To introduce and investigate effective diameter ratios as a new patient metric for use in computed tomography protocol selection as a supplement to patient‐specific size parameter data. Methods: The metrics of outer effective diameter and inner effective diameter were measured for 7 post‐mortem subjects scanned with a standardized chest/abdomen/pelvis (CAP) protocol on a 320‐slice MDCT scanner. The outer effective diameter was calculated by obtaining the anterior/posterior and lateral dimensions of the imaged anatomy at the middle of the scan range using Effective Diameter= SQRT(AP height*Lat Width). The inner effective diameter was calculated with the same equation using the AP and Lat dimensions of the anatomy excluding the adipose tissue. The ratio of outer to inner effective diameter was calculated for each subject. A relationship to BMI, weight, and CTDI conversion coefficients was investigated. Results: For the largest subject with BMI of 43.85 kg/m2 and weight of 255 lbs the diameter ratio was calculated as 1.33. For the second largest subject with BMI of 33.5 kg/m2 and weight of 192.4 lbs the diameter ratio was measured as 1.43, indicating a larger percentage of adipose tissue in the second largest subject's anatomical composition. For the smallest subject at BMI of 17.4 kg/m2 and weight of 86 lbs a similar tissue composition was indicated as a subject with BMI of 24.2 kg/m2 and weight of 136 lbs as they had the same diameter ratios of 1.11. Conclusion: The diameter ratio proves to contain information about anatomical composition that the BMI and weight alone do not. The utility of this metric is still being examined but could prove useful for determining MDCT techniques and for giving a more in depth detail of the composition of a patient's body habitus.