journal article·2022-07-01Open access

Evaluating Effective Dose: A Comparison of Methods Based on Organ Dose Calculations versus Dose-Length Product and Monte Carlo Simulation

Elfatih Abuelhia, Abdulrahman Tajaldeen, Ali Alghamdi, Osama Mabrouk, Wejdan Aluraik, Amir Msmar, Muawia Elsadig, Entisar Osman, Abdullah Al-Othman, Salem Alghamdi, Mesbah Albadri, Rowa Aljondi

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 13

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) has had a massive impact on diagnostic radiology over the past few decades. Serious concerns exist because of the increase in the effective radiation dose associated with CT scans, which could pose significant health risks. In CT, the effective dose can be estimated by Monte Carlo simulations. The aim of the study was to estimate and compare the effective doses for CT from organ dose-based calculations using the tissue weighting factors of the International Commission on Radiological Protection publications (ICRP 60, 103), Monte Carlo CT-Expo v2.6, and dose-length product (DLP)-based estimates. For 165 CT scans, the effective doses (Ed) of the most common routine radiological investigations were assessed. There were 112 male patients (68%) and 53 female patients (32%). When compared to organ dose-based estimates, the DLP-based estimates of the effective dose produced by applying ICRP 60 coefficients were less than 55–57% (head) and more than 18.1% (chest) and 20% (abdomen). The ICRP 103 values of the Ed were less than 79% (head) and more than 17% (chest), and they changed randomly with the tissue weighting factors for the abdomen. For Monte Carlo CT-Expo, the Ed values were lower by 54% (head), 6% (abdomen), and more than 2% (chest) compared to organ dose-based estimates. Effective doses calculated using the tissue-weighting factors of ICRP 103 values comparable to ICRP 60 differ greatly by an average of 2.3, 2.9, and 4.5 mSv for the head, chest, and abdomen, respectively. In conclusion, all estimates of Ed are subject to the biases inflicted by the assumptions in the methods used; therefore, no significant agreement should be expected. The reason for evaluating ICRP 60 is to make a point that ICRP’s update is indeed more accurate. The variability associated with the use of various methodologies to estimate and compare the effective dose Ed in CT scans was shown to be significant in this study.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Radiation Dose and Imaging · Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging · Radiology practices and education

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Radiological Sciences, College of Applied Medical Science, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia

Department of Scientific Research, Deanship of Scientific Research, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia

Department of Computer Sciences and Networks, College of Sciences, University of Northern Borders, Arar 91431, Saudi Arabia

Radiology Department, King Fahad University Hospital, Alkhobar 34445, Saudi Arabia

Department of Applied Radiologic Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 21959, Saudi Arabia

References (28)

Show source-provided references
1. Radiation Exposure Associated With Computed Tomography in Childhood and the Subsequent Risk of Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies10.1177/1559325820923828 ↗
2. Radiation Risk From CT: Implications for Cancer Screening10.2214/AJR.12.9226 ↗
3. Awareness of ionizing radiation exposure among junior doctors and senior medical students in radiological investigations10.1088/1361-6498/37/1/59 ↗
4. Evaluation of arising exposure of ionizing radiation from computed tomography and the associated health concerns
5. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2000). Managing Patients’ Dose in Computer Tomography—International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 87. Annals of the ICRP 30, Pergamon. No. 4.
6. Radiation dose in CT: Are we meeting the challenge?10.1259/bjr.75.889.750001 ↗
7. Dose management in multi–slice spiral computed tomography10.1007/s10406-004-0007-3 ↗
8. Huda, W. (2006). Medical radiation dosimetry. Syllabus: Categorical Course in Diagnostic Radiology: From Invisible to Visible—The Science and Practice of X-ray Imaging and Radiation Dose Optimizatio, Radiological Society of North America.
9. Effective dose in medicine10.1177/0146645320927849 ↗
10. Comparison of Different Methods of Calculating CT Radiation Effective Dose in Children10.2214/AJR.10.5895 ↗
11. Conversion from dose-length product to effective dose in computed tomography venography of the lower extremities10.1088/1361-6498/ac49d6 ↗
12. Patient organ and effective dose estimation in CT: Comparison of four software applications
13. Nenot, J.-C., Brenot, J., Laurier, D., Rannou, A., and Thierry, D. (2009). ICRP Publication 103 The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (INIS-FR--18-0662), Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire.
14. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991). Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann. ICRP, 21, 60.
15. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007). Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann. ICRP, 37, 103.
16. Image Gently (2022, March 05). Image Gently Web Site. Available online: http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig/.
17. International Commission on Radiation Measurements and Units (2022, January 08). Radiation Dose and Image Quality Assessment: In Computer Tomography. J. ICRU 12. ICRU Report No. 87. Available online: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2307593.
18. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Topics in CT-radiation dose in CT
19. Computed tomography scanning with simultaneous patient translation10.1118/1.596464 ↗
20. Primary radiation outside the imaged volume of a multislice helical CT scan10.1259/bjr.75.894.750518 ↗
21. CT Radiation Dose Management: A Comprehensive Optimization Process for Improving Patient Safety10.1148/radiol.2016151173 ↗
22. (2000). European Guidelines for Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography, European Commission.
23. Calculation of effective dose10.1118/1.598948 ↗
24. Jones, D.G., and Shrimpton, P.C. (1991). Survey of CT Practice in the UK. Part 3: Normalized Organ Doses Calculated Using Monte Carlo Techniques, NRPB-250, National Radiological Protection Board.
25. Tang, X., Geng, C., Chen, F., Liu, Y., Chen, D., and Xie, Q. (2011, January 24–28). The Simulation of Effective Dose of Human Body from External Exposure by Monte Carlo Methods. Proceedings of the 2011 First International Workshop on Complexity and Data Mining, Nanjing, China.10.1109/IWCDM.2011.43 ↗
26. Stmm, G., and Nagel, H.D. (2019). CT-Expo V 2.6. A Tool for Dose Evaluation in Computed Tomography User’s Guide, Buchholz.
27. Estimating patient dose on current CT scanners: Results of the ImPACT CT dose survey
28. Estimating Effective Dose for CT Using Dose–Length Product Compared with Using Organ Doses: Consequences of Adopting International Commission On Radiological Protection Publication 103 Or Dual-Energy Scanning10.2214/AJR.09.3462 ↗