Bilgisayarlı Tomografide Bireysel Organ Dozlarının Hesaplanması
Özet
Bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT), modern tıpta kritik öneme sahip bir teşhis yöntemi olmakla birlikte, hastaların maruz kaldığı yüksek iyonize radyasyon dozları nedeniyle önemli riskler barındırmaktadır. Bu çalışma, BT incelemelerinde standart doz indeksleri olan BTDI ve DLP değerlerinin doğrudan hasta ya da organ dozunu yansıtmadığını ortaya koyarak, bireysel organ dozlarının hassas bir şekilde hesaplanmasının gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır. Organ dozlarının belirlenmesinde tüp voltajı (kV), akım değeri (mA) ve hasta boyutu gibi parametreler belirleyici rol oynamaktadır. Günümüzde organ dozlarını tahmin etmek için antropomorfik fantomlarla doğrudan ölçümler, Boyuta Özgü Doz Tahminleri (SSDE), konvolüsyon yöntemleri ve hesaplamalı insan modelleriyle birleştirilmiş Monte Carlo simülasyonları gibi yaklaşımlar kullanılmaktadır. Bu yöntemlerin entegrasyonu, radyasyonun deterministik etkilerini (cilt hasarı, katarakt) ve eşik değeri bulunmayan stokastik risklerini (kanser oluşumu) en aza indirmek için kritik bir öneme sahiptir. Sonuç olarak, BT tabanlı radyasyon yükünün net bir şekilde nicelleştirilmesi, epidemiyolojik risk analizleri ve hasta güvenliği protokollerinin optimize edilmesi açısından vazgeçilmez bir adımdır.
Computed tomography (CT) is a critical diagnostic tool in modern medicine, yet it poses significant risks due to the high levels of ionizing radiation exposure it inflicts on patients. This study highlights that standard dose metrics provided by devices, such as CTDI and DLP, do not directly represent individual patient or organ doses, thereby underscoring the necessity of precise organ dose calculations. Key parameters, including tube voltage (kV), tube current (mA), and patient size, play a decisive role in determining the absorbed organ dose. Currently, methodologies such as direct measurements with anthropomorphic phantoms, Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE), convolution techniques, and Monte Carlo simulations combined with computational human models are utilized to estimate organ doses. Integrating these advanced approaches is vital for minimizing both the deterministic effects (e.g., skin injuries, cataracts) and the non-threshold stochastic risks (e.g., carcinogenesis) associated with radiation. Ultimately, quantifying CT-induced radiation burden with high resolution is an indispensable step for conducting accurate retrospective epidemiological risk assessments and optimizing patient safety protocols.
Referanslar
Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure and associated radiationinduced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radio. 2009;251(1):175-84.
Jibiri NN, Adewale AA. Estimation of radiation dose to the lens of eyes of patients undergoing cranial computed tomography in a teaching Hospital in Osun state, Nigeria. I J Radia Res. 2014;12(1):53-60.
Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ, et al. Design and synthesis of chiral diene ligands for RhI-catalyzed enantioselective arylation of N-DPP-protected aldimines: synthesis of the antifungal agent bifonazole. Radiology. 2011;258:889–905.
Van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, et al. Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology. 2008;249: 97–106.
Hamra GB, Semelka RC, Burke LMB, et al. Trends in diagnostic CT among fee-for-service enrollees, 2000–2011. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(2):125-30.
Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996–2010. JAMA. 2012;307:2400–9.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure: commentary. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277-84.
Kaul A, Bauer B, Bernhardt J, et al. Effective doses to members of the public from the diagnostic application of ionizing radiation in Germany. Eur Radiol. 1997;7: 1127–1132.
Hart D, Wall BF. UK population dose from medical X-ray examinations. Eur J Radiol. 2004;50: 285–291.
Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000;154:178-86.
Al-Rammah TY. CT radiation dose awareness among paediatricians. Ital J Pediatr. 2016;42(1):1-6.
Oono T, Araki F, Tsuduki S, et al. Monte Carlo calculation of patient organ doses from computed tomography. Radiological Physics and Technology. 2013;7(1):176–82.
Erbaş G. Adım Adım Akciğer Bilgisayarlı Tomografisi: Bölüm 2. Yoğun Bakım Dergisi. 2012; 10(1):19-28.
Başekim CÇ, Arslanoğlu A. Bilgisayarlı Tomografide Radyasyon Doz Kontrolü ve Düşük Doz Çekim Teknikleri. Trd Sem. 2020;8: 129-147.
Başar Y, Karaarslan E. (2019). Bilgisayarlı tomografide doz hesaplama ve düşük doz uygulamaları. Fazıl Gelal (Ed.), Radyoloji Fiziği (s.92-100). İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri.
Işık Z, Selçuk H, Albayram S. Bilgisayarlı tomografi ve radyasyon. Klinik Gelişim. 2010;3:16-8.
Hamberg LM, Rhea JT, Hunter GJ, et al. Multi-detector row CT: Radiation dose characteristics. Radiology. 2003;226:762-72.
Paterson A, Frush DP. Dose reduction in paediatric MDCT: General principles. Clin Radiol. 2007; 62: 507-17.
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004;230:619-28.
Başekim CÇ. Radyasyon doz kontrolü ve doz azaltma yöntemleri-pediatrik BT inceleme. Türkiye Klinikleri Radyoloji Özel Sayısı. 2011; 4: 69-73.
Hu, H. Multi‐slice helical CT: scan and reconstruction. Medical physics, 1999;26(1):5-18.
Frush DP. Strategies of dose reduction. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32(4):293-7.
Huda W, Slone R. M. (2003). Review of radiologic physics (3rd edition). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Tsapaki V, Aldrich JE, Sharma R, et al. Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT—IAEA-coordinated research project. Radiology. 2006;240(3):828-834.
Bauhs JA, Vrieze TJ, Primak AN, et al. CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. RadioGraphics. 2008; 28(1):245–253.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011). AAPM Position Statement on Radiation Risks from Medical Imaging Procedures (Policy 25-A). (5/02/2022 tarihinde https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?type=PP&id=318 adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
International Electrotechnical Commission.(2016) IEC 6060-2-44 Edition 3.2. Medical electrical equipment– Part 2-44: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. Geneva: Switzerland.
Andersson J, Pavlicek W, Al-Senan R, et al. Estimating Patient Organ Dosewith Computed Tomography: A Review of Present Methodology and Required DICOM Information: A Joint Report of AAPM Task Group 246 and the European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP), 2019.
Kalender, W. A. (2011). Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology,Image Quality, Applications (3rd edit). Erlangen: Publicis Publishing.
Costa, P. R. (2014). Computer tomography phantom applications. In: The Phantoms of Medical and Health Physics. (pp. 123-142). New York: Springer.
Yamashita K, Higashino K, Hayashi H, et al. Direct measurement of radiation exposure dose to individual organs during diagnostic computed tomography examination. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):1-10.
Winslow JF, Hyer DE, Fisher RF, et al. Construction of anthropomorphic phantoms for use in dosimetry studies. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10:195–204.
Sannikov AV, Savitskaya EN. Ambient dose equivalent conversion factors for high energy neutrons based on the ICRP 60 recommendations. Radiation protection dosimetry. 1997;70(1-4):383-386.
Charles, MW. ICRP Publication 103: Recommendations of the ICRP. 2008;500-507.
Huda W, Sterzik A, Tipnis S, et al. Organ doses to adult patients for chest CT. Med. Phys. 2010;37(2):842–847.
Shrimpton PC , Jones DG. Normalised organ doses for x ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques and a mathematical anthropomorphic phantom. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1993;49(1-3):241-243.
Huda W. Radiation dosimetry in CT: the role of the manufacturer. Imaging in Medicine. 2011;3(2): 247.
Hardy AJ, Bostani M, Kim GHJ, et al. Evaluating Size‐Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE) as an estimate of organ doses from routine CT exams derived from Monte Carlo simulations. Medical Physics. 2021;48(10):6160-6173.
Brady SL, Kaufman RA. Investigation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report 204 size-specific dose estimates for pediatric CT implementation. Radiology. 2012;265(3):832-840.
Leng S, Shiung M, Duan X, et al. Size-specific dose estimates for chest, abdominal, and pelvic CT: effect of intrapatient variability in water-equivalent diameter. Radiology, 2015;276(1), 184-190.
Brady SL, Kaufman RA. Investigation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report 204 size-specific dose estimates for pediatric CT implementation. Radiology, 2012;265(3):832-840.
Leng S, Shiung M, Duan X, Yu L, Zhang Y, McCollough C. MO‐D‐134‐05: Size Specific Dose Estimation in Abdominal CT: Impact of Longitudinal Variations in Patient Size. Medical physics. 2013;40(6Part24):402-3.
Bostani M, McMillan K, Lu P, et al. Attenuation-based size metric for estimating organ dose to patients undergoing tube current modulated CT exams. Med Phys. 2015;42(2):958–68.
Khatonabadi M, Kim HJ, Lu P, et al. The feasibility of a regional CTDIvol to estimate organ dose from tube current modulated CT exams. Med Phys. 2013;40(5):051903.
Hardy A, Bostani M, Cagnon CH, et al. Comparison of Size-Specific Dose Estimate Conversion Factors for Fixed Tube Current and Tube Current Modulated Computed Tomography. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 102 nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, 27 November- 2 December 2016, Chicago, IL.
McMillan, K., M. Bostani, L. Yu, et al. (2015) Size-Specific Effective Dose Estimates in Abdominal and Chest CT Exams Using Either Fixed Tube Current or Tube Current Modulation. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 101 st Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, 29 November- 4 December, 2015, Chicago, IL.
Wang J, Christner JA, Duan X, et al. Attenuation based estimation of patient size for the purpose of size specific dose estimation in CT. Part II. Implementation on abdomen and thorax phantoms using cross sectional CT images and scanned projection radiograph images. Med. Phys. 2012;39(11):6772–78.
McMillan K, Bostani M, Cagnon CH, et al. Estimating patient dose from CT exams that use automatic exposure control: Development and validation of methods to accurately estimate tube current values. Med Phys. 2017;44(8):4262–75.
McCollough C, Bakalyar D, Bostani M, et al. Use of water equivalent diameter for calculating patient size and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in CT: the report of AAPM task group 220. AAPM report, 2014;2014:6.
Harrison RL, Granja C, Leroy C. Introduction to Monte Carlo Simulation. AIP conference proceedings 2010;1204(1):17-21.
Chan HP, Doi K. The validity of Monte Carlo simulation in studies of scattered radiation in diagnostic radiology. Physics in Medicine Biology. 1983;28(2):109.
Giansante L, Martins JC, Nersissian DY, et al. Organ doses evaluation for chest computed tomography procedures with TL dosimeters: Comparison with Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2019;20(1):308-320.
Jansen JT, Shrimpton PC. Calculation of Normalised Organ and Effective Doses to Adult Reference Computational Phantoms from Contemporary Computed Tomography Scanners. Prog Nucl Sci Technol. 2011;2: 165–71.
Li X, Samei E, Segars WP, et al. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part I. development and validation of a Monte Carlo program. Medical physics. 2011; 38(1): 397–407.
Petoussi-Henss N, Zanki M, Fill U, et al. The GSF family of voxel phantoms. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47(1):89–106.
Geyer AM, O’Reilly S, Lee C, et al. The UF/NCI family of hybrid computational phantoms representing the current US population of male and female children, adolescents, and adults--application to CT dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(18):5225–42.
Bolch W, Lee C, Wayson M, et al. Hybrid computational phantoms for medical dose reconstruction. Radiation and environmental biophysics. 2010;49(2):155-168.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man: A Report. Ann ICRP, 1975;23:1–480.
Valentin J. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values: ICRP Publication 89. Ann ICRP, 2002;32(3-4):1-277.
urner AC, Zhang D, Kim H J, et al. A method to generate equivalent energy spectra and filtration models based on measurement for multidetector CT Monte Carlo dosimetry simulations. Med Phys. 2009;36(6):2154–64.
Caon M, Bibbo G, Pattison J. A comparison of radiation dose measured in CT dosimetry phantoms with calculations using EGS4 and voxel-based computational models. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42(1):219–29.
Jarry G, DeMarco JJ, Beifuss U, et al. A Monte Carlo-based method to estimate radiation dose from spiral CT: from phantom testing to patient specific models. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(16):2645–63.
Sechopoulos I, Ali ES, Badal A, et al. Monte Carlo reference data sets for imaging research: Executive summary of the report of AAPM Research Committee Task Group 195. Medical physics, 2015; 42(10):5679-91.
Kalender WA, Saltybaeva N, Kolditz D, et al. Generating and using patient-specific whole-body models for organ dose estimates in CT with increased accuracy: feasibility and validation. Phys Med 2014;30(8):925–33.
Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography-EUR 16262. European commission, 2000;1-71.
Dixon RL. A new look at CT dose measurement: beyond CTDI. Med Phys. 2003;30(6):1272–80.
Dixon RL, Boone JM. Analytical equations for CT dose profiles derived using a scatter kernel of Monte Carlo parentage with broad applicability to CT dosimetry problems. Med Phys. 2011;38(7):4251–64.
Tian X, Segars WP, Dixon RL, et al. Convolution-based estimation of organ dose in tube current modulated CT. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(10):3935–54.
Omar D, Nan D, Guangming Z. Targeted and non-targeted effects of ionizing radiation. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2015;8(2): 247-54.
Mark PL, Richard W, Janet T, et al. Risks Associated with Low Doses and Low Dose Rates of Ionizing Radiation: Why Linearity May Be (Almost) the Best We Can Do. Radiology. 2009;251(1):6-12.
Ma S, Kong B, Liu B, et al. Biological effects of low –dose radiation from computed tomography scanning. Int J Radiat Biol. 2013;89(5):326-33.
Hamada N, Fujimichi Y. Classification of radiation effects for dose limitation purposes: history, current situation and future prospects. Journal of radiation research. 2014;55(4):629-40.
Shibamoto Y, Nakamura H. Overview of Biological, Epidemiological, and Clinical Evidence of Radiation Hormesis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2018; 19(8):2387.
