Background: Radiation dose in computed tomography (CT) has become a topic of high interest due to the increasing numbers of CT examinations performed worldwide. Hence, dose tracking and organ dose calculation software are increasingly used. We evaluated the organ dose variability associated with the use of different software applications or calculation methods. Methods: We tested four commercial software applications on CT protocols actually in use in our hospital: CT-Expo, NCICT, NCICTX, and Virtual Dose. We compared dose coefficients, estimated organ doses and effective doses obtained by the four software applications by varying exposure parameters. Our results were also compared with estimates reported by the software authors. Results: All four software applications showed dependence on tube voltage and volume CT dose index, while only CT-Expo was also dependent on other exposure parameters, in particular scanner model and pitch caused a variability till 50%. We found a disagreement between our results and those reported by the software authors (up to 600%), mainly due to a different extent of examined body regions. The relative range of the comparison of the four software applications was within 35% for most organs inside the scan region, but increased over the 100% for organs partially irradiated and outside the scan region. For effective doses, this variability was less evident (ranging from 9 to 36%). Conclusions: The two main sources of organ dose variability were the software application used and the scan region set. Dose estimate must be related to the process used for its calculation.

Patient organ and effective dose estimation in CT: comparison of four software applications

Pola A.;
2020-01-01

Abstract

Background: Radiation dose in computed tomography (CT) has become a topic of high interest due to the increasing numbers of CT examinations performed worldwide. Hence, dose tracking and organ dose calculation software are increasingly used. We evaluated the organ dose variability associated with the use of different software applications or calculation methods. Methods: We tested four commercial software applications on CT protocols actually in use in our hospital: CT-Expo, NCICT, NCICTX, and Virtual Dose. We compared dose coefficients, estimated organ doses and effective doses obtained by the four software applications by varying exposure parameters. Our results were also compared with estimates reported by the software authors. Results: All four software applications showed dependence on tube voltage and volume CT dose index, while only CT-Expo was also dependent on other exposure parameters, in particular scanner model and pitch caused a variability till 50%. We found a disagreement between our results and those reported by the software authors (up to 600%), mainly due to a different extent of examined body regions. The relative range of the comparison of the four software applications was within 35% for most organs inside the scan region, but increased over the 100% for organs partially irradiated and outside the scan region. For effective doses, this variability was less evident (ranging from 9 to 36%). Conclusions: The two main sources of organ dose variability were the software application used and the scan region set. Dose estimate must be related to the process used for its calculation.
Radiation (ionizing); Radiation dosage; Radiation protection; Software; Tomography (x-ray computed)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Patient-organ-and-effective-dose-estimation-in-CT-comparison-of-four-software-applications2020European-Radiology-Experimental.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo
: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 3.11 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.11 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1134924
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact