Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Sep;35(9):3866-74.
doi: 10.1118/1.2959847.

TLD assessment of mouse dosimetry during microCT imaging

Affiliations

TLD assessment of mouse dosimetry during microCT imaging

Said Daibes Figueroa et al. Med Phys. 2008 Sep.

Abstract

Advances in laboratory animal imaging have provided new resources for noninvasive biomedical research. Among these technologies is microcomputed tomography (microCT) which is widely used to obtain high resolution anatomic images of small animals. Because microCT utilizes ionizing radiation for image formation, radiation exposure during imaging is a concern. The objective of this study was to quantify the radiation dose delivered during a standard microCT scan. Radiation dose was measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), which were irradiated employing an 80 kVp x-ray source, with 0.5 mm A1 filtration and a total of 54 mA s for a full 360 deg rotation of the unit. The TLD data were validated using a 3.2 cm3 CT ion chamber probe. TLD results showed a single microCT scan air kerma of 78.0 +/- 5.0 mGy when using a poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) anesthesia support module and an air kerma of 92.0 +/- 6.0 mGy without the use of the anesthesia module. The validation CT ion chamber study provided a measured radiation air kerma of 81.0 +/- 4.0 mGy and 97.0 +/- 5.0 mGy with and without the PMMA anesthesia module, respectively. Internal TLD analysis demonstrated an average mouse organ radiation absorbed dose of 76.0 +/- 5.0 mGy. The author's results have defined x-ray exposure for a routine microCT study which must be taken into consideration when performing serial molecular imaging studies involving the microCT imaging modality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
MicroCT PMMA anesthesia support module. Radiation exposures were defined for microCT scans when conducted with and without the use of the microCT PMMA anesthesia support module. The anesthesia module provides gas anesthesia under a HEPA filtered pathogen-free environment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Calibration curve to convert TLD output into radiation dose. We used this calibration plot to determine the exposure response of the TLD chips which was 0.00542 C∕kg∕μC. This calculation allowed us to convert TLD output into radiation dose for the remainder of the experiments.
Figure 3
Figure 3
C∕kg delivered per radiograph. This graph shows the charge imparted to the field of view isocenter as a function of radiograph acquisition angle. The radiation dose is relatively constant from 0 to ∼200 deg angle of acquisition, but then decreases from 200 to ∼350 deg. This reduction is due to the plastic animal bed within the anesthesia module which absorbs some of the x-ray dose and therefore reduces the radiation exposure measured by the CT probe ion chamber.
Figure 4
Figure 4
C∕kg delivered as a function of kVp. This graph shows the linear relationship between dose and kVp setting of the x-ray source. As the kVp increases, the dose increases linearly. For all three conditions, the slopes of the lines are very similar confirming that TLD radiation measurements are comparable to ion chamber measurements.
Figure 5
Figure 5
MicroCT images of implanted TLDs. MicroCT reconstructed images highlighting the precise locations of implanted TLDs. Figure shows (A) a sagittal microCT slice, (B) a coronal microCT slice, and (C) the axial microCT slice corresponding to the intersected lines in (A) and (B).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arguello F., Baggs R. B., and Frantz C. N., “A murine model of experimental metastasis to bone and bone marrow,” Cancer Res. CNREA8 48, 6876–6881 (1988). - PubMed
    1. Massoud T. F. and Gambhir S. S., “Molecular imaging in living subjects: Seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light,” Genes Dev. GEDEEP10.1101/gad.1047403 17, 545–580 (2003). - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yang M., Jiang P., An Z., Baranov E., Li L., Hasegawa S., Al-Tuwaijri M., Chishima T., Shimada H., Moossa A. R., and Hoffman R. M., “Genetically fluorescent melanoma bone and organ metastasis models,” Clin. Cancer Res. ZZZZZZ 5, 3549–3559 (1999). - PubMed
    1. Ray P., Wu A. M., and Gambhir S. S., “Optical bioluminescence and positron emission tomography imaging of a novel fusion reporter gene in tumor xenografts of living mice,” Cancer Res. CNREA8 63, 1160–1165 (2003). - PubMed
    1. Shrayer D. P., Bogaars H., Wolf S. F., Hearing V. J., and Wanebo H. J., “A new mouse model of experimental melanoma for vaccine and lymphokine therapy,” Int. J. Oncol. ZZZZZZ 13, 361–364 (1998). - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms