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
. 2024 Dec 23;10(12):2144-2157.
doi: 10.3390/tomography10120151.

Automated Measurement of Effective Radiation Dose by 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography

Yujin Eom  1 , Yong-Jin Park  2 , Sumin Lee  2 , Su-Jin Lee  2 , Young-Sil An  2 , Bok-Nam Park  2 , Joon-Kee Yoon  2
Affiliations

Automated Measurement of Effective Radiation Dose by 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography

Yujin Eom et al. Tomography. .

Abstract

Background/objectives: Calculating the radiation dose from CT in 18F-PET/CT examinations poses a significant challenge. The objective of this study is to develop a deep learning-based automated program that standardizes the measurement of radiation doses.

Methods: The torso CT was segmented into six distinct regions using TotalSegmentator. An automated program was employed to extract the necessary information and calculate the effective dose (ED) of PET/CT. The accuracy of our automated program was verified by comparing the EDs calculated by the program with those determined by a nuclear medicine physician (n = 30). Additionally, we compared the EDs obtained from an older PET/CT scanner with those from a newer PET/CT scanner (n = 42).

Results: The CT ED calculated by the automated program was not significantly different from that calculated by the nuclear medicine physician (3.67 ± 0.61 mSv and 3.62 ± 0.60 mSv, respectively, p = 0.7623). Similarly, the total ED showed no significant difference between the two calculation methods (8.10 ± 1.40 mSv and 8.05 ± 1.39 mSv, respectively, p = 0.8957). A very strong correlation was observed in both the CT ED and total ED between the two measurements (r2 = 0.9981 and 0.9996, respectively). The automated program showed excellent repeatability and reproducibility. When comparing the older and newer PET/CT scanners, the PET ED was significantly lower in the newer scanner than in the older scanner (4.39 ± 0.91 mSv and 6.00 ± 1.17 mSv, respectively, p < 0.0001). Consequently, the total ED was significantly lower in the newer scanner than in the older scanner (8.22 ± 1.53 mSv and 9.65 ± 1.34 mSv, respectively, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: We successfully developed an automated program for calculating the ED of torso 18F-PET/CT. By integrating a deep learning model, the program effectively eliminated inter-operator variability.

Keywords: 18F-FDG; computed tomography; deep learning; effective dose; positron emission tomography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Representative images of PET/CT and a CT dose report from a patient with lung cancer. (a) coronal CT (b) coronal PET (c) CT dose report.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Reference images used for segmenting the torso into six body parts. (a) Top of the skull (b) C1 (c) T1 (d) hepatic dome (e) iliac crest (f) bottom of the pelvic bones.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The diagram of the automated ED calculation program for 18F-FDG PET/CT.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) Box and whisker plots of effective doses for CT and PET/CT (total) calculated by various methods; automated program, nuclear medicine physician, CT-Expo’ program and whole-body conversion factors (0.0082 and 0.0015). (b) Correlation between effective doses calculated by the automated program and the nuclear medicine physician. (c) Bland–Altman plots for the differences in effective doses of CT and PET/CT (total) calculated by the automated program and a nuclear medicine physician; MAD, maximum allowed difference.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Box and whisker plots of effective doses for CT, PET, and PET/CT (total) from newer and older scanners.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. UNEP . What Is Radiation? What Does Radiation Do to Us? Where Does Radiation Come from? UNSCEAR; Vienna, Austria: 2016. Radiation Effects and Sources; pp. 1–10, 13–17, 27–37. UNED, ed.
    1. Richardson D.B., Leuraud K., Laurier D., Gillies M., Haylock R., Kelly-Reif K., Bertke S., Daniels R.D., Thierry-Chef I., Moissonnier M., et al. Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): Cohort study. BMJ. 2023;382:e074520. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-074520. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martin C.J., Barnard M. How much should we be concerned about cumulative effective doses in medical imaging? J. Radiol. Prot. 2022;42:011514. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac31c1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lim H., Choi J., Kim J.H., Cheong H.K., Ha M. Estimation of Cancer Incidence and Mortality Risks Attributed to Diagnostic Medical Radiation Exposure in Korea, 2013. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2018;33:e211. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e211. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hustinx R., Benard F., Alavi A. Whole-body FDG-PET imaging in the management of patients with cancer. Semin. Nucl. Med. 2002;32:35–46. doi: 10.1053/snuc.2002.29272. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources