Monte Carlo simulations to assess the effects of tube current modulation on breast dose for multidetector CT

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 497-511

  Angel, Erin ^a   Yaghmai, Nazanin ^a   Jude, Cecilia Matilda ^a   Demarco, John J ^a   Cagnon, Christopher H ^a   Goldin, Jonathan G ^a   Primak, Andrew N ^b   Stevens, Donna M ^c   Cody, Dianna D ^c   McCollough, Cynthia H ^b   McNitt Gray, Michael F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Mayo Clinic   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST TISSUES; CHEST CT; CT IMAGING; CT SCANS; DOSE REDUCTIONS; GLANDULAR TISSUES; IMAGE DATUM; IMAGE SETS; MONTE CARLO MODELS; MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS; MULTIDETECTOR CT; PATIENT ANATOMIES; PATIENT MODELS; PATIENT POSITIONING; PATIENT SIZES; RADIATION DOSE; SEMI-AUTOMATED; SIZE DEPENDENTS; TUBE CURRENTS; X-RAY PHOTONS;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; IMAGE QUALITY; MODULATION; MONTE CARLO METHODS; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; SCANNING; TISSUE; TUBES (COMPONENTS);

ELECTRIC INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMERS;

ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ARTICLE; BREAST; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COLLIMATOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOSIMETRY; FEMALE; FILTRATION; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PATIENT POSITIONING; PERIMETER; PHOTON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGIST; SPECTRUM; THORAX; TUBE CURRENT MODULATION; X RAY FILM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BODY BURDEN; BREAST; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOMETRY; RELATIVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 63649162415     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/3/003     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Adam J E 2006 Changes in the computed tomography patient population Eur. Rad. Suppl. 16 (suppl 4) D38-41
2. Boice J D et al 1979 Risk of breast cancer following low-dose radiation exposure Radiology 131 589-97
3. Brenner D J and Hall E J 2007 Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure N. Engl. J. Med. 357 2277-84
4. DeMarco J J, Cagnon C H, Cody D D, Stevens D M, McCollough C H, O'Daniel J and McNitt-Gray M F 2005 A Monte Carlo based method to estimate radiation dose from multidetector CT (MDCT): cylindrical and anthropomorphic phantoms Phys. Med. Biol. 50 3989-4004
5. DeMarco J J, Cagnon C H, Cody D D, Stevens D M, McCollough C H, Zankl M, Angel E and McNitt-Gray M F 2007 Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: effects of different size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose Phys. Med. Biol. 52 2583-97
6. DeMarco J J, Solberg T D and Smathers J B 1998 A CT-based Monte Carlo simulation tool for dosimetry planning and analysis Med. Phys. 25 1-11
7. DeMarco J J, Wallace R E and Boedeker K 2002 An analysis of MCNP cross-sections and tally methods for low-energy photon emitters Phys. Med. Biol. 47 1321-32
8. Gies M et al 1999 Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation I simulation studies Med. Phys. 26 2235-47
9. Greess H et al 2000 Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions Eur. Radiol. 10 391-4
10. Hill D A et al 2002 Medical radiation, family history of cancer, and benign breast disease in relation to breast cancer risk in young women USA Cancer Causes Control 13 711-8
11. Hubbell J H and Seltzer S M 1995 Tables of x-ray mass absorption coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients (version 1.03) (online) National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (available at: http://physics.nist.gov)
12. Hurwitz L M et al 2006 Radiation dose to the female breast from 16-MDCT body protocols AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol. 186 1718-22
13. ICRP 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103 Ann. ICRP 37 1-32
14. ImPACT CTDosimetry 2000 Imaging performance assessment of CT Scanners: a medical devices agency evaluation group. CT scanner matching data, tables of CTDI values in air, CTDIw, and phantom factor values ImPACT Internet home page (http://www.ImPACTscan.org)
15. Jarry G, DeMarco J J, Beifuss U, Cagnon C H and McNitt-Gray M F 2003 A Monte Carlo-based method to estimate radiation dose from spiral CT: from phantom testing to patient-specific models Phys. Med. Biol. 48 2645-63
16. Kalender W A et al 1999a Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers Eur. Radiol. 9 323-28
17. Kalender W A, Wolf H and Suess C 1999b Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: II. Phantom measurements Med. Phys. 26 2248-53
18. Kalra M K et al 2005a Computed tomography radiation dose optimization: scanning protocols and clinical applications of automatic exposure control Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 34 171-81
19. Kalra M K et al 2005b Chest CT performed with z-axis modulation: scanning protocol and radiation dose Radiology 237 303-8
20. Li J et al 2007 Automatic patient centering for MDCT: effect on radiation dose Am. J. Roentgenol. 188 547-52
21. Martin C J 2007 Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br. J. Radiol. 80 639-47
22. Mayo J R, Aldrich J and Muller N L 2003 Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleischner Society Radiology 228 15-21
23. McCollough C H, Bruesewitz M R and Kofler J M Jr 2006 CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options Radiographics 26 503-12
24. Mulkens T H et al 2005 Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation Radiology 237 213-23
25. Parker M S et al 2005 Female breast radiation exposure during CT pulmonary angiography AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol.
26. Preston D L et al 2002 Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of eight cohorts Radiat. Res. 158 220-35
27. Preston D L, Ron E and Tokuoka S 2007 Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998 Radiat. Res. 168 1-64
28. Rizzo S et al 2006 Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with fixed tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol. 186 673-9
29. Tack D, De Maertelaer V and Gevenois P A 2003 Dose reduction in multidetector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation Am. J. Roentgenol. 181 331-4
30. Tran L N, Brown M S, Goldin J G, Yan X, Rogers S R, Pais R C, Gjertson D, McNitt-Gray M F and Aberle D R 2004 Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest CT Acad. Radiol. 11 1355-60
31. Vollmar S V and Kalender W A 2008 Reduction of dose to the female breast in thoracic CT: a comparison of standard-protocol, bismuth-shielded, partial and tube-current-modulated CT examinations Eur. Radiol. 18 1674-82
32. Waters L (ed) 2002 MCNPX User's Manual Version 2.4.0 Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-CP-02-408
33. Waters L (ed) 2003 MCNPX Version 2.5.C Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-03-2202