CT Dose Reduction and Dose Management Tools: Overview of Available Options

PurposeThe target detectability of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) performed in image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT) was investigated to achieve sufficient image quality for patient positioning over a course of treatment session while maintaining radiation exposure from CBCT imaging as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).MethodsBody CBCT scans operated in half‐fan mode were acquired with three different protocols: CBCTlowD, CBCTmidD, and CBCThighD, which resulted in weighted CT dose index (CTDIw) of 0.36, 1.43, and 2.78 cGy, respectively. An electron density phantom that is 18 cm in diameter was covered by four layers of 2.5‐cm‐thick bolus to simulate patients of different body sizes. Multivariate analysis was used to examine the impact of body size, radiation exposure, and tissue type on the target detectability of CBCT imaging, quantified as contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR).ResultsCBCTmidD allows sufficient target detection of adipose, breast, muscle, liver in a background of water for normal‐weight adults with cross‐sectional diameter less than 28 cm, while CBCThighD is suitable for adult patients with larger body sizes or body mass index over 25 kg/m2. Once the cross‐sectional diameter of adult patients is larger than 35 cm, the CTDIw of CBCT scans should be higher than 2.78 cGy to achieve required CNR. As for pediatric and adolescent patients with cross‐sectional diameter less than 25 cm, CBCTlowD is able to produce images with sufficient target detection.ConclusionThe target detectability of soft tissues in default CBCT scans may not be sufficient for overweight or obese adults. Contrary, pediatric and adolescent patients would receive unnecessarily high radiation exposure from default CBCT scans. Therefore, the selection of acquisition parameters for CBCT scans optimized according to patient body size was proposed to ensure sufficient image quality for daily patient positioning in radiation therapy while achieving the ALARA principle.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing the target detectability of cone beam CT performed in image‐guided radiation therapy for patients of different body sizes

Yang

Ruan

et al. 2018

“…The CT literature has frequently proposed methods with which to reduce radiation dose levels and improve image quality 1 , 2 . However, due to the nature of academic publishing, little to no guidance is given on how to best apply the findings to a particular scanner.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital

Szczykutowicz

Bour

Pozniak

et al. 2015

The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience with the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 1.a: “CT Protocol Management and Review Practice Guideline”. Specifically, we will share how our institution's quality management system addresses the suggestions within the AAPM practice report. We feel this paper is needed as it was beyond the scope of the AAPM practice guideline to provide specific details on fulfilling individual guidelines. Our hope is that other institutions will be able to emulate some of our practices and that this article would encourage other types of centers (e.g., community hospitals) to share their methodology for approaching CT protocol optimization and quality control. Our institution had a functioning CT protocol optimization process, albeit informal, since we began using CT. Recently, we made our protocol development and validation process compliant with a number of the ISO 9001:2008 clauses and this required us to formalize the roles of the members of our CT protocol optimization team. We rely heavily on PACS‐based IT solutions for acquiring radiologist feedback on the performance of our CT protocols and the performance of our CT scanners in terms of dose (scanner output) and the function of the automatic tube current modulation. Specific details on our quality management system covering both quality control and ongoing optimization have been provided. The roles of each CT protocol team member have been defined, and the critical role that IT solutions provides for the management of files and the monitoring of CT protocols has been reviewed. In addition, the invaluable role management provides by being a champion for the project has been explained; lack of a project champion will mitigate the efforts of a CT protocol optimization team. Meeting the guidelines set forth in the AAPM practice guideline was not inherently difficult, but did, in our case, require the cooperation of radiologists, technologists, physicists, IT, administrative staff, and hospital management. Some of the IT solutions presented in this paper are novel and currently unique to our institution.PACS number: 87.57.Q

“…The CT literature contains many analyses of how different vendor implementations of AEC behave 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . However, there are very few studies detailing how to ensure that protocol changes within a single scanner, or protocol customizations from one scanner platform to another that will allow the AEC to function within the mA limits of the scanner 9 , 10 , 11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept

Szczykutowicz

Bour

Rubert

et al. 2015

This article explains a method for creating CT protocols for a wide range of patient body sizes and clinical indications, using detailed tube current information from a small set of commonly used protocols. Analytical expressions were created relating CT technical acquisition parameters which can be used to create new CT protocols on a given scanner or customize protocols from one scanner to another. Plots of mA as a function of patient size for specific anatomical regions were generated and used to identify the tube output needs for patients as a function of size for a single master protocol. Tube output data were obtained from the DICOM header of clinical images from our PACS and patient size was measured from CT localizer radiographs under IRB approval. This master protocol was then used to create 11 additional master protocols. The 12 master protocols were further combined to create 39 single and multiphase clinical protocols. Radiologist acceptance rate of exams scanned using the clinical protocols was monitored for 12,857 patients to analyze the effectiveness of the presented protocol management methods using a two‐tailed Fisher's exact test. A single routine adult abdominal protocol was used as the master protocol to create 11 additional master abdominal protocols of varying dose and beam energy. Situations in which the maximum tube current would have been exceeded are presented, and the trade‐offs between increasing the effective tube output via 1) decreasing pitch, 2) increasing the scan time, or 3) increasing the kV are discussed. Out of 12 master protocols customized across three different scanners, only one had a statistically significant acceptance rate that differed from the scanner it was customized from. The difference, however, was only 1% and was judged to be negligible. All other master protocols differed in acceptance rate insignificantly between scanners. The methodology described in this paper allows a small set of master protocols to be adapted among different clinical indications on a single scanner and among different CT scanners.PACS number: 87.57.Q