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
. 2022 Jun;23(6):e13625.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13625. Epub 2022 May 6.

Comparison of organ and effective dose estimations from different Monte Carlo simulation-based software methods in infant CT and comparison with direct phantom measurements

Michael Lawson  1   2 , Kemal Berk  3 , Mohamed Badawy  1   4 , Yujin Qi  2 , Ahilan Kuganesan  1 , Peter Metcalfe  2
Affiliations

Comparison of organ and effective dose estimations from different Monte Carlo simulation-based software methods in infant CT and comparison with direct phantom measurements

Michael Lawson et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: Computational dosimetry software is routinely used to evaluate the organ and effective doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations. Studies have shown a significant variation in dose estimates between software in adult cohorts, and few studies have evaluated software for pediatric dose estimates. This study aims to compare the primary organ and effective doses estimated by four commercially available CT dosimetry software to thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) measurements in a 1-year-old phantom.

Methods: One hundred fifteen calibrated LiF (Mg, Cu, P)-TLD 100-H chips were embedded within an anthropomorphic phantom representing a 1-year-old child at positions that matched the approximate location of organs within an infant. The phantom was scanned under three protocols, each with whole-body coverage. The mean absorbed doses from 25 radiosensitive organs and skeletal tissues were determined from the TLD readings. Effective doses for each of the protocols were subsequently calculated using ICRP 103 formalism. Dose estimates by the four Monte Carlo-based dose calculation systems were determined and compared to the directly measured doses.

Results: Most organ doses determined by computation dosimetry software aligned to phantom measurements within 20%. Additionally, comparisons between effective doses are calculated using computational and direct measurement methods aligned within 20% across the three protocols. Significant variances were found in bone surface dose estimations among dosimetry methods, likely caused by differences in bone tissue modeling.

Conclusion: All four-dosimetry software evaluated in this study provide adequate primary organ and effective dose estimations. Users should be aware, however, of the possible estimated uncertainty associated with each of the programs.

Keywords: computational dosimetry; computed tomography; effective dose; infants; organ dose; thermoluminescent dosimeters.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(a) The anthropomorphic phantom used for direct organ dose measurements. (b) The placement of TLDs within the phantom (skull). (c) The placement of TLDs with the phantom (thorax). TLDs, thermoluminescent dosimeters
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Variation in organ and EDs between dosimetry software and TLD measurements for protocol 1 (80‐kVp GE Discovery). EDs, effective doses; TLD, thermoluminescent dosimeter
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Variation in organ and EDs between dosimetry software and TLD measurements for protocol 2 (100‐kVp GE Discovery). EDs, effective doses; TLD, thermoluminescent dosimeter
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Variation in organ and EDs between dosimetry software and TLD measurements for protocol 3 (80‐kVp Canon Aquilion One). EDs, effective doses; TLD, thermoluminescent dosimeter
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wall BF. Ionising Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States: NCRP Report No. 160 . Oxford University Press; 2009.
    1. Elzinga JL, Dunne CL, Vorobeichik A, et al. A systematic review protocol to determine the most effective strategies to reduce computed tomography usage in the emergency department. Cureus. 2020;12(8):e9509. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chaves TO, Dovales ACM, da Rosa LAR, Veiga LHS. Patterns and trends of computed tomography usage among pediatric and young adult patients in a private hospital in Rio de Janeiro, 2005–2015. Braz J Radiat Sci. 2018;6(1):28–42
    1. Kathren RL. Historical development of the linear nonthreshold dose‐response model as applied to radiation. Pierce Law Rev. 2002;1:5.
    1. Little MP. Heterogeneity of variation of relative risk by age at exposure in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2009;48(3):253–262. - PubMed