Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: Effects of different size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose.

The purpose of this work is to examine the effects of patient size on radiation dose from CT scans. To perform these investigations, we used Monte Carlo simulation methods with detailed models of both patients and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanners. A family of three-dimensional, voxelized patient models previously developed and validated by the GSF was implemented as input files using the Monte Carlo code MCNPX. These patient models represent a range of patient sizes and ages (8 weeks to 48 years) and have all radiosensitive organs previously identified and segmented, allowing the estimation of dose to any individual organ and calculation of patient effective dose. To estimate radiation dose, every voxel in each patient model was assigned both a specific organ index number and an elemental composition and mass density. Simulated CT scans of each voxelized patient model were performed using a previously developed MDCT source model that includes scanner specific spectra, including bowtie filter, scanner geometry and helical source path. The scan simulations in this work include a whole-body scan protocol and a thoracic CT scan protocol, each performed with fixed tube current. The whole-body scan simulation yielded a predictable decrease in effective dose as a function of increasing patient weight. Results from analysis of individual organs demonstrated similar trends, but with some individual variations. A comparison with a conventional dose estimation method using the ImPACT spreadsheet yielded an effective dose of 0.14 mSv mAs(-1) for the whole-body scan. This result is lower than the simulations on the voxelized model designated 'Irene' (0.15 mSv mAs(-1)) and higher than the models 'Donna' and 'Golem' (0.12 mSv mAs(-1)). For the thoracic scan protocol, the ImPACT spreadsheet estimates an effective dose of 0.037 mSv mAs(-1), which falls between the calculated values for Irene (0.042 mSv mAs(-1)) and Donna (0.031 mSv mAs(-1)) and is higher relative to Golem (0.025 mSv mAs(-1)). This work demonstrates the ability to estimate both individual organ and effective doses from any arbitrary CT scan protocol on individual patient-based models and to provide estimates of the effect of patient size on these dose metrics

Estimating peak skin and eye lens dose from neuroperfusion examinations: Use of Monte Carlo based simulations and comparisons to CTDI_vol, AAPM report no. 111, and ImPACT dosimetry tool values.

Purpose: CT neuroperfusion examinations are capable of delivering high radiation dose to the skin or lens of the eyes of a patient and can possibly cause deterministic radiation injury. The purpose of this study is to: (a) estimate peak skin dose and eye lens dose from CT neuroperfusion examinations based on several voxelized adult patient models of different head size and (b) investigate how well those doses can be approximated by some commonly used CT dose metrics or tools, such as CTDIvol, American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report No. 111 style peak dose measurements, and the ImPACT organ dose calculator spreadsheet.Methods: Monte Carlo simulation methods were used to estimate peak skin and eye lens dose on voxelized patient models, including GSF's Irene, Frank, Donna, and Golem, on four scanners from the major manufacturers at the widest collimation under all available tube potentials. Doses were reported on a per 100 mAs basis. CTDIvol measurements for a 16 cm CTDI phantom, AAPM Report No. 111 style peak dose measurements, and ImPACT calculations were performed for available scanners at all tube potentials. These were then compared with results from Monte Carlo simulations.Results: The dose variations across the different voxelized patient models were small. Dependent on the tube potential and scanner and patient model, CTDIvol values overestimated peak skin dose by 26%-65%, and overestimated eye lens dose by 33%-106%, when compared to Monte Carlo simulations. AAPM Report No. 111 style measurements were much closer to peak skin estimates ranging from a 14% underestimate to a 33% overestimate, and with eye lens dose estimates ranging from a 9% underestimate to a 66% overestimate. The ImPACT spreadsheet overestimated eye lens dose by 2%-82% relative to voxelized model simulations.Conclusions: CTDIvol consistently overestimates dose to eye lens and skin. The ImPACT tool also overestimated dose to eye lenses. As such they are still useful as a conservative predictor of dose for CT neuroperfusion studies. AAPM Report No. 111 style measurements are a better predictor of both peak skin and eye lens dose than CTDIvol and ImPACT for the patient models used in this study. It should be remembered that both the AAPM Report No. 111 peak dose metric and CTDIvol dose metric are dose indices and were not intended to represent actual organ doses

Peak skin and eye lens radiation dose from brain perfusion CT based on Monte Carlo simulation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to accurately estimate the radiation dose to skin and the eye lens from clinical CT brain perfusion studies, investigate how well scanner output (expressed as volume CT dose index [CTDI(vol)]) matches these estimated doses, and investigate the efficacy of eye lens dose reduction techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Peak skin dose and eye lens dose were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods on a voxelized patient model and 64-MDCT scanners from four major manufacturers. A range of clinical protocols was evaluated. CTDI(vol) for each scanner was obtained from the scanner console. Dose reduction to the eye lens was evaluated for various gantry tilt angles as well as scan locations. RESULTS: Peak skin dose and eye lens dose ranged from 81 mGy to 348 mGy, depending on the scanner and protocol used. Peak skin dose and eye lens dose were observed to be 66-79% and 59-63%, respectivelAmy, of the CTDI(vol) values reported by the scanners. The eye lens dose was significantly reduced when the eye lenses were not directly irradiated. CONCLUSION: CTDI(vol) should not be interpreted as patient dose; this study has shown it to overestimate dose to the skin or eye lens. These results may be used to provide more accurate estimates of actual dose to ensure that protocols are operated safely below thresholds. Tilting the gantry or moving the scanning region further away from the eyes are effective for reducing lens dose in clinical practice. These actions should be considered when they are consistent with the clinical task and patient anatomy