Patient-adapted organ absorbed dose and effective dose estimates in pediatric 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography studies.
CT dosimetry
Effective dose
PET dosimetry
PET/CT dosimetry
Pediatric
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 01 2020
29 01 2020
Historique:
received:
29
07
2019
accepted:
21
01
2020
entrez:
31
1
2020
pubmed:
31
1
2020
medline:
26
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Organ absorbed doses and effective doses can be used to compare radiation exposure among medical imaging procedures, compare alternative imaging options, and guide dose optimization efforts. Individual dose estimates are important for relatively radiosensitive patient populations such as children and for radiosensitive organs such as the eye lens. Software-based dose calculation methods conveniently calculate organ dose using patient-adjusted and examination-specific inputs. Organ absorbed doses and effective doses were calculated for 429 pediatric 18F-FDG PET-CT patients. Patient-adjusted and scan-specific information was extracted from the electronic medical record and scanner dose-monitoring software. The VirtualDose and OLINDA/EXM (version 2.0) programs, respectively, were used to calculate the CT and the radiopharmaceutical organ absorbed doses and effective doses. Patients were grouped according to age at the time of the scan as follows: less than 1 year old, 1 to 5 years old, 6 to 10 years old, 11 to 15 years old, and 16 to 17 years old. The mean (+/- standard deviation, range) total PET plus CT effective dose was 14.5 (1.9, 11.2-22.3) mSv. The mean (+/- standard deviation, range) PET effective dose was 8.1 (1.2, 5.7-16.5) mSv. The mean (+/- standard deviation, range) CT effective dose was 6.4 (1.8, 2.9-14.7) mSv. The five organs with highest PET dose were: Urinary bladder, heart, liver, lungs, and brain. The five organs with highest CT dose were: Thymus, thyroid, kidneys, eye lens, and gonads. Organ and effective dose for both the CT and PET components can be estimated with actual patient and scan data using commercial software. Doses calculated using software generally agree with those calculated using dose conversion factors, although some organ doses were found to be appreciably different. Software-based dose calculation methods allow patient-adjusted dose factors. The effort to gather the needed patient data is justified by the resulting value of the characterization of patient-adjusted dosimetry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Organ absorbed doses and effective doses can be used to compare radiation exposure among medical imaging procedures, compare alternative imaging options, and guide dose optimization efforts. Individual dose estimates are important for relatively radiosensitive patient populations such as children and for radiosensitive organs such as the eye lens. Software-based dose calculation methods conveniently calculate organ dose using patient-adjusted and examination-specific inputs.
METHODS
Organ absorbed doses and effective doses were calculated for 429 pediatric 18F-FDG PET-CT patients. Patient-adjusted and scan-specific information was extracted from the electronic medical record and scanner dose-monitoring software. The VirtualDose and OLINDA/EXM (version 2.0) programs, respectively, were used to calculate the CT and the radiopharmaceutical organ absorbed doses and effective doses. Patients were grouped according to age at the time of the scan as follows: less than 1 year old, 1 to 5 years old, 6 to 10 years old, 11 to 15 years old, and 16 to 17 years old.
RESULTS
The mean (+/- standard deviation, range) total PET plus CT effective dose was 14.5 (1.9, 11.2-22.3) mSv. The mean (+/- standard deviation, range) PET effective dose was 8.1 (1.2, 5.7-16.5) mSv. The mean (+/- standard deviation, range) CT effective dose was 6.4 (1.8, 2.9-14.7) mSv. The five organs with highest PET dose were: Urinary bladder, heart, liver, lungs, and brain. The five organs with highest CT dose were: Thymus, thyroid, kidneys, eye lens, and gonads.
CONCLUSIONS
Organ and effective dose for both the CT and PET components can be estimated with actual patient and scan data using commercial software. Doses calculated using software generally agree with those calculated using dose conversion factors, although some organ doses were found to be appreciably different. Software-based dose calculation methods allow patient-adjusted dose factors. The effort to gather the needed patient data is justified by the resulting value of the characterization of patient-adjusted dosimetry.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31996149
doi: 10.1186/s12880-020-0415-4
pii: 10.1186/s12880-020-0415-4
pmc: PMC6988339
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Références
J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(9):1360-1366
pubmed: 28687601
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Aug 14;63(16):165012
pubmed: 30022768
J Nucl Med. 2009 Oct;50(10):1570-7
pubmed: 19793734
J Nucl Med. 2017 Jan;58(1):7-8
pubmed: 27754908
J Nucl Med. 2017 Jan;58(1):1-6
pubmed: 27493264
Ann ICRP. 2015 Jul;44(2 Suppl):7-321
pubmed: 26069086
BMC Med Imaging. 2017 Apr 26;17(1):28
pubmed: 28446130
Nuklearmedizin. 2014;53(5):217-20
pubmed: 24919708
J Radiol Prot. 2018 Sep;38(3):1217-1233
pubmed: 30004025
Pediatr Radiol. 2010 May;40(5):681-6
pubmed: 19967534
Radiology. 2009 Apr;251(1):166-74
pubmed: 19251940
Pediatr Radiol. 2004 Mar;34(3):205-13
pubmed: 14745525
Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332
pubmed: 18082557
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2016 Jul-Aug;22(4):390-4
pubmed: 27306659
Health Phys. 2019 Feb;116(2):235-246
pubmed: 30585971
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Feb;190(2):273-4
pubmed: 18212208
Semin Nucl Med. 2017 May;47(3):258-274
pubmed: 28417855
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 21;60(14):5601-25
pubmed: 26134511
J Nucl Med. 2005 Jun;46(6):1023-7
pubmed: 15937315
J Nucl Med. 1986 Feb;27(2):287-98
pubmed: 3712045
BMC Med Imaging. 2016 Jun 18;16(1):41
pubmed: 27317478
Health Phys. 2017 Aug;113(2):102-109
pubmed: 28658055
J Nucl Med. 2008 Jun;49(6):1024-7
pubmed: 18483096
J Nucl Med Technol. 2008 Dec;36(4):171-80
pubmed: 19008284