A comparison study of size-specific dose estimate calculation methods
| Autor: | Stephanie Soriano, Roshni A. Parikh, Paul Klahr, Michael Wien, Sheila C. Berlin, Ronald D. Novak, Leslie Ciancibello, David W. Jordan |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Risk Adolescent Radiation Dosage Body weight 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging Medical physicist Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Body Size Humans Medicine Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Child Retrospective Studies Entire population Measurement method business.industry Body Weight Ultrasound Infant Calculation methods Effective diameter Child Preschool 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Pediatrics Perinatology and Child Health Comparison study Female Tomography X-Ray Computed Nuclear medicine business Algorithms |
| Zdroj: | Pediatric Radiology. 48:56-65 |
| ISSN: | 1432-1998 0301-0449 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00247-017-3986-7 |
| Popis: | The size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) has emerged as an improved metric for use by medical physicists and radiologists for estimating individual patient dose. Several methods of calculating SSDE have been described, ranging from patient thickness or attenuation-based (automated and manual) measurements to weight-based techniques. To compare the accuracy of thickness vs. weight measurement of body size to allow for the calculation of the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) in pediatric body CT. We retrospectively identified 109 pediatric body CT examinations for SSDE calculation. We examined two automated methods measuring a series of level-specific diameters of the patient’s body: method A used the effective diameter and method B used the water-equivalent diameter. Two manual methods measured patient diameter at two predetermined levels: the superior endplate of L2, where body width is typically most thin, and the superior femoral head or iliac crest (for scans that did not include the pelvis), where body width is typically most thick; method C averaged lateral measurements at these two levels from the CT projection scan, and method D averaged lateral and anteroposterior measurements at the same two levels from the axial CT images. Finally, we used body weight to characterize patient size, method E, and compared this with the various other measurement methods. Methods were compared across the entire population as well as by subgroup based on body width. Concordance correlation (ρc) between each of the SSDE calculation methods (methods A–E) was greater than 0.92 across the entire population, although the range was wider when analyzed by subgroup (0.42–0.99). When we compared each SSDE measurement method with CTDIvol, there was poor correlation, ρc |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink