Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Pediatric Radiology
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 4/2008

01-04-2008 | Original Article

Computing effective doses to pediatric patients undergoing body CT examinations

Authors: Walter Huda, Kent M. Ogden

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 4/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The computation of patient effective doses to children is of particular interest given the relatively high doses received from this imaging modality, as well as the increased utilization of CT in all areas of medicine. Current methods for computing effective doses to children are relatively complex, and it would be useful to develop a simple method of computing pediatric effective doses for clinical purposes that could be used by radiologists and technologists.

Objective

To obtain pediatric effective doses for body CT examinations by the use of adult effective doses obtained from effective dose (E) per unit dose length product (DLP) coefficients, and energy imparted to a child relative to an adult.

Materials and methods

Adult E/DLP coefficients were obtained at 120 kV using the ImPACT CT dosimetry spreadsheet. Patients were modeled as cylinders of water, and values of energy imparted to cylinders of varying radii were generated using Monte Carlo modeling. The amounts of energy imparted to the chest and abdomen of children relative to adults (Ren) were obtained. Pediatric effective doses were obtained using scaling factors that accounted for scan length, mAs, patient weight, and relative energy imparted (Ren).

Results

E/DLP values were about 16 μSv/mGy cm for males and about 19 μSv/mGy cm for females. Ren at 120 kV for newborns was 0.35 for the chest and 0.49 for the abdomen. At constant mAs, the effective dose to 6-month-old patients undergoing chest CT examinations was found to be about 50% higher than that to adults, and for abdominal examinations about 100% higher.

Conclusion

Adult effective doses can be obtained using DLP data and can be scaled to provide corresponding pediatric effective doses from body examinations on the same CT scanner.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
A 70-kg adult patient uniformly irradiated to 1 Gy absorbs 70 J of energy and receives an effective dose of 1 Sv (i.e. 14 mSv/J); a 35-kg patient uniformly irradiated to 1 Gy also receives 1 Sv but only absorbs 35 J (i.e., 28 mSv/J). In general, if the energy deposited is the same, and the patient mass is halved, organ doses and/or effective dose will double.
 
2
The E/DLP for an adult chest is 17.2 μSv/mGy cm when measured in a body phantom; DLPs obtained from dose measurements in head phantoms would be approximately double, but the E/DLP conversion factor would be approximately one-half. DLP is a measure of the total radiation incident on the patient, and the choice of phantom size is immaterial. It is only important to be consistent—one cannot quantify DLP using doses obtained with head phantoms and use E/DLP conversion coefficients using doses obtained with body phantoms.
 
3
Note that adults would normally be scanned at 120 kV; the DLP at 120 kV would be 347 mGy cm, which corresponds to an adult effective dose of 5.2 mSv.
 
4
We have assumed that the E/DLP is independent of the X-ray tube voltage. E/DLP factors have a modest kV dependence, and in cardiac imaging E/DLP conversion factors have been shown to be 10% lower at 80kV compared to 120 kV [34].
 
Literature
1.
Task Group on Control of Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography (2000) Managing patient dose in computed tomography. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 30:7–45
2.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991) 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 21:1–201
3.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSEAR, New York, p 654
4.
5.
Brenner DJ, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289–296PubMed
6.
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S (2007) Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 298:317–323PubMedCrossRef
7.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1989) Exposure of the U.S. Population from Diagnostic Medical Radiation (Report no. 100). NCRP, Bethesda, MD
8.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1987) Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (Report no. 93). NCRP, Bethesda, MD
9.
Huda W, Ravenel JG, Scalzetti EM (2002) How do radiographic techniques affect image quality and patient doses in CT? Semin Ultrasound CT MR 23:411–422PubMedCrossRef
10.
Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J et al (2004) Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. II. Image quality. Med Phys 31:595–601PubMedCrossRef
11.
Carlsson GA, Dance DR, Persliden J et al (1999) Use of the concept of energy imparted in diagnostic radiology. Appl Radiat Isotopes 50:39–62CrossRef
12.
Shrimpton PC, Wall BF, Jones DG et al (1984) The measurement of energy imparted to patients during diagnostic x-ray examinations using the Diamentor exposure-area product meter. Phys Med Biol 29:1199–1208PubMedCrossRef
13.
Gkanatsios NA, Huda W (1997) Computation of energy imparted in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 24:571–579PubMedCrossRef
14.
Huda W, Gkanatsios NA (1997) Effective dose and energy imparted in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 24:1311–1316PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Jonisch AI, Huda W, Ogden KM (2005) Use of energy imparted as an optimization tool in CT. SPIE Med Imaging 5745:744–753
17.
Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K et al (2006) Estimation of effective doses to adult and pediatric patients from multislice computed tomography: a method based on energy imparted. Med Phys 33:3846–3856PubMedCrossRef
18.
Atherton JV, Huda W (1996) Energy imparted and effective doses in computed tomography. Med Phys 23:735–741PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Huda W, Atherton JV, Ware DE et al (1997) An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. Radiology 203:417–422PubMed
21.
22.
Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC et al (1991) Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: dosimetric aspects (NRPB report 249). National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, UK, p 121
23.
Jones DG, Shrimpton PC (1993) Normalized organ doses for X-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques (NRPB SR-250). National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, UK, p 45
24.
Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik GA et al (1999) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography (report EUR 16262 EN). European Commission, Brussels
25.
Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA et al (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980PubMedCrossRef
26.
Galanski M, Hidajat N, Maier W et al (2000) In: Nagel HD (ed) Radiation exposure in computed tomography, 4th edn. European Coordination Committee of the Radiological and Electromedical Industries, Frankfurt
27.
Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA et al (2000) CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20:353–359PubMedCrossRef
28.
Linton OW, Mettler FA Jr (2003) National council on radiation protection and measurements. National conference on dose reduction in CT with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR 181:321–329PubMed
29.
Frush DP (2005) Computed tomography: important considerations for pediatric patients. Expert Rev Med Devices 2:567–575PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS et al (2001) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR 176:303–306PubMed
32.
33.
Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G (2000) Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 217:430–435PubMed
34.
Huda W, McCollough CH (2007) CT of the heart: radiation dose considerations. In: Schoepf UJ (ed) CT of the heart: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Humana, Totowa, NJ (in press)
35.
Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-expo – a novel program for dose evaluation in CT. Rofo 174:1570–1576PubMed
36.
Brix G, Lechel U, Veit R et al (2004) Assessment of a theoretical formalism for dose estimation in CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study. Eur Radiol 14:1275–1284PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kalender WA, Schmidt B, Zankl M et al (1999) A PC program for estimating organ dose and effective dose values in computed tomography. Eur Radiol 9:555–562PubMedCrossRef
38.
DeMarco JJ, Cagnon CH, Cody DD et al (2007) Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: effects of different size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose. Phys Med Biol 52:2583–2597PubMedCrossRef
39.
Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi TT, Goodman PC et al (2007) Effective dose determination using an anthropomorphic phantom and metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor technology for clinical adult body multidetector array computed tomography protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:544–549PubMedCrossRef
40.
Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC et al (2002) Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. Br J Radiol 75:819–830PubMed
41.
Chapple CL, Willis S, Frame J (2002) Effective dose in paediatric computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 47:107–115PubMedCrossRef
42.
Hollingsworth CL, Yoshizumi TT, Frush DP et al (2007) Pediatric cardiac-gated CT angiography: assessment of radiation dose. AJR 189:12–18PubMedCrossRef
43.
Lee C, Lee C, Staton RJ et al (2007) Organ and effective doses in pediatric patients undergoing helical multislice computed tomography examination. Med Phys 34:1858–1873PubMedCrossRef
44.
Lee C, Williams JL, Lee C et al (2005) The UF series of tomographic computational phantoms of pediatric patients. Med Phys 32:3537–3548PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Computing effective doses to pediatric patients undergoing body CT examinations
Authors
Walter Huda
Kent M. Ogden
Publication date
01-04-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-007-0732-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

Pediatric Radiology 4/2008 Go to the issue

Original Article

Real-time and Doppler US after pediatric segmental liver transplantation

Pediatric Radiology CME Activity

Pediatric Radiology Continuing Medical Education Activity

Original Article

Real-time and Doppler US after pediatric segmental liver transplantation

Pictorial Essay

Neonatal cardiac multidetector row CT: why and how we do it

Original Article

Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease: multipositional power Doppler sonography of the proximal femoral vascularity

Clinical Image

Osteitis caused by BCG vaccination