Premium
MO‐E‐17A‐01: BEST IN PHYSICS (IMAGING) – Calculating SSDE From CT Exams Using Size Data Available in the DICOM Header of CT Localizer Radiographs
Author(s) -
McMillan K,
Bostani M,
McCollough C,
McNittGray M
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4889153
Subject(s) - dicom , nuclear medicine , radiography , collimator , medicine , header , medical imaging , radiology , mathematics , physics , optics , statistics
Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of using existing data stored within the DICOM header of certain CT localizer radiographs as a patient size metric for calculating CT size‐specific dose estimates (SSDE). Methods: For most Siemens CT scanners, the CT localizer radiograph (topogram) contains a private DICOM field that stores an array of numbers describing AP and LAT attenuation‐based measures of patient dimension. The square root of the product of the AP and LAT size data, which provides an estimate of water‐equivalent‐diameter (WED), was calculated retrospectively from topogram data of 20 patients who received clinically‐indicated abdomen/pelvis (n=10) and chest (n=10) scans (WED‐topo). In addition, slice‐by‐slice water‐equivalent‐diameter (WED‐image) and effective diameter (ED‐image) values were calculated from the respective image data. Using TG‐204 lookup tables, size‐dependent conversion factors were determined based upon WED‐topo, WED‐image and ED‐image values. These conversion factors were used with the reported CTDIvol to calculate slice‐by‐slice SSDE for each method. Averaging over all slices, a single SSDE value was determined for each patient and size metric. Patientspecific SSDE and CTDIvol values were then compared with patientspecific organ doses derived from detailed Monte Carlo simulations of fixed tube current scans. Results: For abdomen/pelvis scans, the average difference between liver dose and CTDIvol, SSDE(WED‐topo), SSDE(WED‐image), and SSDE(ED‐image) was 18.70%, 8.17%, 6.84%, and 7.58%, respectively. For chest scans, the average difference between lung dose and CTDIvol, SSDE(WED‐topo), SSDE(WED‐image), and SSDE(ED‐image) was 25.80%, 3.33%, 4.11%, and 7.66%, respectively. Conclusion: SSDE calculated using WED derived from data in the DICOM header of the topogram was comparable to SSDE calculated using WED and ED derived from axial images; each of these estimated organ dose to within 10% for both abdomen/pelvis and chest CT examinations. The topogrambased method has the advantage that WED data are already provided and therefore available without additional post‐processing of the image data. Funding Support: NIH Grant R01‐EB017095; Disclosures – Michael McNitt‐Gray: Institutional Research Agreement, Siemens AG; Research Support, Siemens AG; Consultant, Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC; Consultant, Fulbright and Jaworski; Disclosures – Cynthia McCollough: Research Grant, Siemens Healthcare