Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Imaging 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Computed Tomography | Research article

Patient-adapted organ absorbed dose and effective dose estimates in pediatric 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography studies

Authors: Brian M. Quinn, Yiming Gao, Usman Mahmood, Neeta Pandit-Taskar, Gerald Behr, Pat Zanzonico, Lawrence T. Dauer

Published in: BMC Medical Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Organ absorbed doses and effective doses can be used to compare radiation exposure among medical imaging procedures, compare alternative imaging options, and guide dose optimization efforts. Individual dose estimates are important for relatively radiosensitive patient populations such as children and for radiosensitive organs such as the eye lens. Software-based dose calculation methods conveniently calculate organ dose using patient-adjusted and examination-specific inputs.

Methods

Organ absorbed doses and effective doses were calculated for 429 pediatric 18F-FDG PET-CT patients. Patient-adjusted and scan-specific information was extracted from the electronic medical record and scanner dose-monitoring software. The VirtualDose and OLINDA/EXM (version 2.0) programs, respectively, were used to calculate the CT and the radiopharmaceutical organ absorbed doses and effective doses. Patients were grouped according to age at the time of the scan as follows: less than 1 year old, 1 to 5 years old, 6 to 10 years old, 11 to 15 years old, and 16 to 17 years old.

Results

The mean (+/− standard deviation, range) total PET plus CT effective dose was 14.5 (1.9, 11.2–22.3) mSv. The mean (+/− standard deviation, range) PET effective dose was 8.1 (1.2, 5.7–16.5) mSv. The mean (+/− standard deviation, range) CT effective dose was 6.4 (1.8, 2.9–14.7) mSv. The five organs with highest PET dose were: Urinary bladder, heart, liver, lungs, and brain. The five organs with highest CT dose were: Thymus, thyroid, kidneys, eye lens, and gonads.

Conclusions

Organ and effective dose for both the CT and PET components can be estimated with actual patient and scan data using commercial software. Doses calculated using software generally agree with those calculated using dose conversion factors, although some organ doses were found to be appreciably different. Software-based dose calculation methods allow patient-adjusted dose factors. The effort to gather the needed patient data is justified by the resulting value of the characterization of patient-adjusted dosimetry.
Literature
1.
go back to reference NCRP. NCRP report 160: ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2006. NCRP. NCRP report 160: ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2006.
2.
go back to reference Quinn B, Dauer Z, Pandit-Raskar N, Schoder H, Dauer LT. Radiation Dosimetry of 18F-FDG PET/CT: incorporating exam-specific parameters in dose estimates. BMC Med Imaging. 2016;16(1):41.CrossRef Quinn B, Dauer Z, Pandit-Raskar N, Schoder H, Dauer LT. Radiation Dosimetry of 18F-FDG PET/CT: incorporating exam-specific parameters in dose estimates. BMC Med Imaging. 2016;16(1):41.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chawla SC, Federman N, Zhang D, Nagata K, et al. Estimated cumulative Radiation dose from PET/CT in children with Malifnancies: a 5-year retrospective review. Pediatr Radiol. 2010;40(5):681–6.CrossRef Chawla SC, Federman N, Zhang D, Nagata K, et al. Estimated cumulative Radiation dose from PET/CT in children with Malifnancies: a 5-year retrospective review. Pediatr Radiol. 2010;40(5):681–6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Alessio AM, Kinahan PE, Manchanda V, Ghioni V, Aldape L, Parisi M. Weight-based, low-dose pediatric whole-body PET/CT protocols. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1570–8.CrossRef Alessio AM, Kinahan PE, Manchanda V, Ghioni V, Aldape L, Parisi M. Weight-based, low-dose pediatric whole-body PET/CT protocols. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1570–8.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kim YY, Shin HJ, Kim MJ, Lee MJ. Comparison of Effective Radiation Doses from X-ray, CT, and PET/CT in Pediatric Patients with Neuroblastoma Using a Dose Monitoring Program. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2009;22(4):390–4 2016.CrossRef Kim YY, Shin HJ, Kim MJ, Lee MJ. Comparison of Effective Radiation Doses from X-ray, CT, and PET/CT in Pediatric Patients with Neuroblastoma Using a Dose Monitoring Program. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2009;22(4):390–4 2016.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Huang B, Law MWM, Khong PL. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of Radiation dose and Cancer risk. Radiology. 2009;251(1):166–74.CrossRef Huang B, Law MWM, Khong PL. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of Radiation dose and Cancer risk. Radiology. 2009;251(1):166–74.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference UNSCEAR. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Seventy-second Session. General Assembly Records Sixty Seventh Session, Supplemental No. 46. United Nations: Annex A (A/72/46); 2018. UNSCEAR. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Seventy-second Session. General Assembly Records Sixty Seventh Session, Supplemental No. 46. United Nations: Annex A (A/72/46); 2018.
8.
go back to reference ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2–4):129. ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2–4):129.
9.
go back to reference Fisher DR, Fahey FH. Appropriate Use of Effective Dose in Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment. Health Phys. 2017;113(2):102–9.CrossRef Fisher DR, Fahey FH. Appropriate Use of Effective Dose in Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment. Health Phys. 2017;113(2):102–9.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference NCRP. Commentary No. 27 – Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear-Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2018. NCRP. Commentary No. 27 – Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear-Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2018.
11.
go back to reference Shore RE, Beck HL, Boice JD Jr, et al. Recent Epidemiologic Studies and the Linear No-Threshold Model For Radiation Protection Consideration Regarding NCRP Commentary 27. Health Phys. 2019;116(2):235–46.CrossRef Shore RE, Beck HL, Boice JD Jr, et al. Recent Epidemiologic Studies and the Linear No-Threshold Model For Radiation Protection Consideration Regarding NCRP Commentary 27. Health Phys. 2019;116(2):235–46.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Shore RE, Beck HL, Boice JD, et al. Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38(3):1217–33.CrossRef Shore RE, Beck HL, Boice JD, et al. Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38(3):1217–33.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2006. National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2006.
14.
go back to reference Siegel J, Pennington C, Sacks B. Subjecting Radiologic Imaging to the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis: A non-sequitur of Non-Trivial Proportion. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1–6.CrossRef Siegel J, Pennington C, Sacks B. Subjecting Radiologic Imaging to the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis: A non-sequitur of Non-Trivial Proportion. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1–6.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Weber W, Zanzonico P. The Controversial Linear-no Threshold Model. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(1):7–8.CrossRef Weber W, Zanzonico P. The Controversial Linear-no Threshold Model. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(1):7–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, et al. The image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(2):273–4.CrossRef Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, et al. The image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(2):273–4.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Treves ST, Davis RT, Fahey FH. Administered radiopharmaceutical doses in children: a survey of 13 pediatric hospitals in North America. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1024–7.CrossRef Treves ST, Davis RT, Fahey FH. Administered radiopharmaceutical doses in children: a survey of 13 pediatric hospitals in North America. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1024–7.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Parisi MT, Bermo MS, Alessio AM, Sharp SE, Gelfand MJ, Shulkin BL. Optimization of pediatric PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med. 2017 May;47(2):258–74.CrossRef Parisi MT, Bermo MS, Alessio AM, Sharp SE, Gelfand MJ, Shulkin BL. Optimization of pediatric PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med. 2017 May;47(2):258–74.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kaste SC. Issues specific to implementing PET-CT for pediatric oncology: what we have learned along the way. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34:205–13.CrossRef Kaste SC. Issues specific to implementing PET-CT for pediatric oncology: what we have learned along the way. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34:205–13.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference McQuattie S. Pediatric PET/CT imaging: tips and techniques. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;36:171–8.CrossRef McQuattie S. Pediatric PET/CT imaging: tips and techniques. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;36:171–8.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Fahey FH, Goodkind A, MacDougal RD, Oberg L, Ziniel SI, Cappock R, Callahan MJ, Kwatra N, Treves ST, Voss SD. Operational and Dosimetric Aspects of Pediatric PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(9):1360–6.CrossRef Fahey FH, Goodkind A, MacDougal RD, Oberg L, Ziniel SI, Cappock R, Callahan MJ, Kwatra N, Treves ST, Voss SD. Operational and Dosimetric Aspects of Pediatric PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(9):1360–6.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Brix G, Nosske D, Lechel U. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body FDG-PET/CT examinations: an update pursuant to the new ICRP recommendations. Nuklearmedizin. 2014;53(5):217–20.CrossRef Brix G, Nosske D, Lechel U. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body FDG-PET/CT examinations: an update pursuant to the new ICRP recommendations. Nuklearmedizin. 2014;53(5):217–20.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Reference doses for Paediatric computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2000;90(1–2):249–52.CrossRef Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Reference doses for Paediatric computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2000;90(1–2):249–52.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference ICRP. Radiological Protection in Medicine. International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 105. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(6):25–33. ICRP. Radiological Protection in Medicine. International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 105. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(6):25–33.
28.
go back to reference Stabin M, Sparks R, Crowe E. OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):1023–7.PubMed Stabin M, Sparks R, Crowe E. OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):1023–7.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Ding A, Gao Y, Liu H, Caracappa PF, Long DJ, Bolch WE, Liu B, Xu XG. VirtualDose: a software for reporting organ doses from CT for adult and pediatric patients. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(14):5601–25.CrossRef Ding A, Gao Y, Liu H, Caracappa PF, Long DJ, Bolch WE, Liu B, Xu XG. VirtualDose: a software for reporting organ doses from CT for adult and pediatric patients. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(14):5601–25.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Shore RM, Hendee WR. Radiopharmaceutical dosage selection for pediatric nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 1986;27(2):287–98.PubMed Shore RM, Hendee WR. Radiopharmaceutical dosage selection for pediatric nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 1986;27(2):287–98.PubMed
31.
go back to reference ICRP. Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals: A Compendium of Current Information Related to Frequently Used Substances. ICRP Publication 128. Ann ICRP. 2015;44(2S):108. ICRP. Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals: A Compendium of Current Information Related to Frequently Used Substances. ICRP Publication 128. Ann ICRP. 2015;44(2S):108.
32.
go back to reference Khamwan K, OReilly S, Plyku D, Goodkind A, Josefsson A, Cao X, Fahey F, Treves T, Bolch W, Sgouros G. Re-evaluation of pediatric 18F-FDG Dosimetry: Cristy-Eckerman versus UF/NCI hybrid computational phantoms. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(16):165012.CrossRef Khamwan K, OReilly S, Plyku D, Goodkind A, Josefsson A, Cao X, Fahey F, Treves T, Bolch W, Sgouros G. Re-evaluation of pediatric 18F-FDG Dosimetry: Cristy-Eckerman versus UF/NCI hybrid computational phantoms. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(16):165012.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Ding A, Gu J, Mille M, Xu XG, Liu B. VirtualDose: A CT Dose Reporting Software Based on Anatomically Realistic Phantoms. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:S2 520. Ding A, Gu J, Mille M, Xu XG, Liu B. VirtualDose: A CT Dose Reporting Software Based on Anatomically Realistic Phantoms. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:S2 520.
34.
go back to reference Gao Y, Quinn B, Mahmood U, Long D, Erdi Y, St Germain J, Pandit-Taskar N, Xu XG, Bolch W, Dauer L. A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods. BMC Med Im. 2017;17:28.CrossRef Gao Y, Quinn B, Mahmood U, Long D, Erdi Y, St Germain J, Pandit-Taskar N, Xu XG, Bolch W, Dauer L. A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods. BMC Med Im. 2017;17:28.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient-adapted organ absorbed dose and effective dose estimates in pediatric 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography studies
Authors
Brian M. Quinn
Yiming Gao
Usman Mahmood
Neeta Pandit-Taskar
Gerald Behr
Pat Zanzonico
Lawrence T. Dauer
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2342
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-0415-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Imaging 1/2020 Go to the issue