Estimated Patient Dose Indexes in Adult and Pediatric MDCT: Comparison of Automatic Tube Voltage Selection With Fixed Tube Current, Fixed Tube Voltage, and Weight-Based Protocols

The purposes of this study were to determine the differences in estimated volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) obtained from the topogram before abdominal and pelvic MDCT in adult and pediatric patients using a scan type-based algorithm for selecting kilovoltage (CARE kV) and a fixed and a weight-base...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of roentgenology (1976) 2015-09, Vol.205 (3), p.592-598
Hauptverfasser: Baker, Mark E, Karim, Wadih, Bullen, Jennifer A, Primak, Andrew N, Dong, Frank F, Herts, Brian R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 598
container_issue 3
container_start_page 592
container_title American journal of roentgenology (1976)
container_volume 205
creator Baker, Mark E
Karim, Wadih
Bullen, Jennifer A
Primak, Andrew N
Dong, Frank F
Herts, Brian R
description The purposes of this study were to determine the differences in estimated volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) obtained from the topogram before abdominal and pelvic MDCT in adult and pediatric patients using a scan type-based algorithm for selecting kilovoltage (CARE kV) and a fixed and a weight-based Quality Reference mAs for selecting tube (gmAs) current-exposure time product, in comparison with standard protocols, and to determine the bias and variability of estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis actual CTDIvol using the standard protocols. During a 14-month period, 312 adult and pediatric patients referred for abdominal and pelvic MDCT were included in the study. For all patients, the estimated CTDIvol based on the topogram was recorded: protocol A, CARE kV on and 210 gmAs; protocol B, CARE kV on and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds); and protocol C (standard protocol), CARE kV off, 120 kVp, and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds). For the pediatric patients, estimated CTDIvol for the standard protocol D was calculated with 120 kVp and 150 gmAs. All patients were scanned with the standard protocols, and the actual CTDIvol was recorded. Linear regression models compared the CTDIvol of the three protocols in adults and the fourth for children. The estimated and actual CTDIvol were compared using a t test. Protocol B yielded the lowest estimated CTDIvol (mean, 13.2 mGy for adults and 3.5 mGy for pediatric patients). The estimated CTDIvol overestimated the actual CTDIvol by, on average, 1.07 mGy for adults and 0.3 mGy for children. CARE kV appears to reduce estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis standard protocols only when a weight-based gmAs is used. Prescan estimated CTDIvol calculations appear to generally overestimate actual CTDIvol.
doi_str_mv 10.2214/AJR.14.13242
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1706209296</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1706209296</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-524627b99be9bbf5b2c2d09ca7303898cb124c2bbc3d8eca962281d1d24ba6ce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkU1vEzEQhi0EoqFw44x85JAN9qzjXXML2w-KikAQKLeVPyat0WYdbK9U_ha_sG4aEKeRZp5539G8hLzkbAHAxZvVhy8LLha8BgGPyIwvhaxqLvhjMmO15FXL6h9H5FlKPxljTauap-QIJKilFM2M_DlN2W91Rkc_6-xxzPQkJKQXo8NbTNSPdOWmIVM9FgKd1zl6Sz-edOu3tAvbnY4-hZGGDV1NORSlMl1PBun3MGR9jfQrDmizL8yVzzf0zN8Wrz3RTTEWw_n_vcPWfO93hf76JlfvdLo_L4YcbBjSc_Jko4eELw71mHw7O11376vLT-cX3eqysqB4rpYgJDRGKYPKmM3SgAXHlNVNzepWtdZwEBaMsbVr0WolAVruuANhtLRYH5PXD7q7GH5NmHK_9cniMOgRw5R63jAJTIGSBZ0_oDaGlCJu-l0sX42_e876-5T6klJfyj6lgr86KE9mi-4f_DeW-g7LaY6a</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1706209296</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Estimated Patient Dose Indexes in Adult and Pediatric MDCT: Comparison of Automatic Tube Voltage Selection With Fixed Tube Current, Fixed Tube Voltage, and Weight-Based Protocols</title><source>American Roentgen Ray Society</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Baker, Mark E ; Karim, Wadih ; Bullen, Jennifer A ; Primak, Andrew N ; Dong, Frank F ; Herts, Brian R</creator><creatorcontrib>Baker, Mark E ; Karim, Wadih ; Bullen, Jennifer A ; Primak, Andrew N ; Dong, Frank F ; Herts, Brian R</creatorcontrib><description>The purposes of this study were to determine the differences in estimated volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) obtained from the topogram before abdominal and pelvic MDCT in adult and pediatric patients using a scan type-based algorithm for selecting kilovoltage (CARE kV) and a fixed and a weight-based Quality Reference mAs for selecting tube (gmAs) current-exposure time product, in comparison with standard protocols, and to determine the bias and variability of estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis actual CTDIvol using the standard protocols. During a 14-month period, 312 adult and pediatric patients referred for abdominal and pelvic MDCT were included in the study. For all patients, the estimated CTDIvol based on the topogram was recorded: protocol A, CARE kV on and 210 gmAs; protocol B, CARE kV on and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds); and protocol C (standard protocol), CARE kV off, 120 kVp, and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds). For the pediatric patients, estimated CTDIvol for the standard protocol D was calculated with 120 kVp and 150 gmAs. All patients were scanned with the standard protocols, and the actual CTDIvol was recorded. Linear regression models compared the CTDIvol of the three protocols in adults and the fourth for children. The estimated and actual CTDIvol were compared using a t test. Protocol B yielded the lowest estimated CTDIvol (mean, 13.2 mGy for adults and 3.5 mGy for pediatric patients). The estimated CTDIvol overestimated the actual CTDIvol by, on average, 1.07 mGy for adults and 0.3 mGy for children. CARE kV appears to reduce estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis standard protocols only when a weight-based gmAs is used. Prescan estimated CTDIvol calculations appear to generally overestimate actual CTDIvol.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-803X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1546-3141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13242</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26295647</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Algorithms ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Female ; Humans ; Infant ; Male ; Multidetector Computed Tomography - instrumentation ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiography, Abdominal</subject><ispartof>American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2015-09, Vol.205 (3), p.592-598</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-524627b99be9bbf5b2c2d09ca7303898cb124c2bbc3d8eca962281d1d24ba6ce3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-524627b99be9bbf5b2c2d09ca7303898cb124c2bbc3d8eca962281d1d24ba6ce3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4120,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26295647$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baker, Mark E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karim, Wadih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bullen, Jennifer A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Primak, Andrew N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dong, Frank F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herts, Brian R</creatorcontrib><title>Estimated Patient Dose Indexes in Adult and Pediatric MDCT: Comparison of Automatic Tube Voltage Selection With Fixed Tube Current, Fixed Tube Voltage, and Weight-Based Protocols</title><title>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</title><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><description>The purposes of this study were to determine the differences in estimated volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) obtained from the topogram before abdominal and pelvic MDCT in adult and pediatric patients using a scan type-based algorithm for selecting kilovoltage (CARE kV) and a fixed and a weight-based Quality Reference mAs for selecting tube (gmAs) current-exposure time product, in comparison with standard protocols, and to determine the bias and variability of estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis actual CTDIvol using the standard protocols. During a 14-month period, 312 adult and pediatric patients referred for abdominal and pelvic MDCT were included in the study. For all patients, the estimated CTDIvol based on the topogram was recorded: protocol A, CARE kV on and 210 gmAs; protocol B, CARE kV on and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds); and protocol C (standard protocol), CARE kV off, 120 kVp, and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds). For the pediatric patients, estimated CTDIvol for the standard protocol D was calculated with 120 kVp and 150 gmAs. All patients were scanned with the standard protocols, and the actual CTDIvol was recorded. Linear regression models compared the CTDIvol of the three protocols in adults and the fourth for children. The estimated and actual CTDIvol were compared using a t test. Protocol B yielded the lowest estimated CTDIvol (mean, 13.2 mGy for adults and 3.5 mGy for pediatric patients). The estimated CTDIvol overestimated the actual CTDIvol by, on average, 1.07 mGy for adults and 0.3 mGy for children. CARE kV appears to reduce estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis standard protocols only when a weight-based gmAs is used. Prescan estimated CTDIvol calculations appear to generally overestimate actual CTDIvol.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiography, Abdominal</subject><issn>0361-803X</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkU1vEzEQhi0EoqFw44x85JAN9qzjXXML2w-KikAQKLeVPyat0WYdbK9U_ha_sG4aEKeRZp5539G8hLzkbAHAxZvVhy8LLha8BgGPyIwvhaxqLvhjMmO15FXL6h9H5FlKPxljTauap-QIJKilFM2M_DlN2W91Rkc_6-xxzPQkJKQXo8NbTNSPdOWmIVM9FgKd1zl6Sz-edOu3tAvbnY4-hZGGDV1NORSlMl1PBun3MGR9jfQrDmizL8yVzzf0zN8Wrz3RTTEWw_n_vcPWfO93hf76JlfvdLo_L4YcbBjSc_Jko4eELw71mHw7O11376vLT-cX3eqysqB4rpYgJDRGKYPKmM3SgAXHlNVNzepWtdZwEBaMsbVr0WolAVruuANhtLRYH5PXD7q7GH5NmHK_9cniMOgRw5R63jAJTIGSBZ0_oDaGlCJu-l0sX42_e876-5T6klJfyj6lgr86KE9mi-4f_DeW-g7LaY6a</recordid><startdate>201509</startdate><enddate>201509</enddate><creator>Baker, Mark E</creator><creator>Karim, Wadih</creator><creator>Bullen, Jennifer A</creator><creator>Primak, Andrew N</creator><creator>Dong, Frank F</creator><creator>Herts, Brian R</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201509</creationdate><title>Estimated Patient Dose Indexes in Adult and Pediatric MDCT: Comparison of Automatic Tube Voltage Selection With Fixed Tube Current, Fixed Tube Voltage, and Weight-Based Protocols</title><author>Baker, Mark E ; Karim, Wadih ; Bullen, Jennifer A ; Primak, Andrew N ; Dong, Frank F ; Herts, Brian R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-524627b99be9bbf5b2c2d09ca7303898cb124c2bbc3d8eca962281d1d24ba6ce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiography, Abdominal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baker, Mark E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karim, Wadih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bullen, Jennifer A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Primak, Andrew N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dong, Frank F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herts, Brian R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baker, Mark E</au><au>Karim, Wadih</au><au>Bullen, Jennifer A</au><au>Primak, Andrew N</au><au>Dong, Frank F</au><au>Herts, Brian R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Estimated Patient Dose Indexes in Adult and Pediatric MDCT: Comparison of Automatic Tube Voltage Selection With Fixed Tube Current, Fixed Tube Voltage, and Weight-Based Protocols</atitle><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><date>2015-09</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>205</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>592</spage><epage>598</epage><pages>592-598</pages><issn>0361-803X</issn><eissn>1546-3141</eissn><abstract>The purposes of this study were to determine the differences in estimated volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) obtained from the topogram before abdominal and pelvic MDCT in adult and pediatric patients using a scan type-based algorithm for selecting kilovoltage (CARE kV) and a fixed and a weight-based Quality Reference mAs for selecting tube (gmAs) current-exposure time product, in comparison with standard protocols, and to determine the bias and variability of estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis actual CTDIvol using the standard protocols. During a 14-month period, 312 adult and pediatric patients referred for abdominal and pelvic MDCT were included in the study. For all patients, the estimated CTDIvol based on the topogram was recorded: protocol A, CARE kV on and 210 gmAs; protocol B, CARE kV on and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds); and protocol C (standard protocol), CARE kV off, 120 kVp, and 1 gmAs times patient weight (in pounds). For the pediatric patients, estimated CTDIvol for the standard protocol D was calculated with 120 kVp and 150 gmAs. All patients were scanned with the standard protocols, and the actual CTDIvol was recorded. Linear regression models compared the CTDIvol of the three protocols in adults and the fourth for children. The estimated and actual CTDIvol were compared using a t test. Protocol B yielded the lowest estimated CTDIvol (mean, 13.2 mGy for adults and 3.5 mGy for pediatric patients). The estimated CTDIvol overestimated the actual CTDIvol by, on average, 1.07 mGy for adults and 0.3 mGy for children. CARE kV appears to reduce estimated CTDIvol vis-à-vis standard protocols only when a weight-based gmAs is used. Prescan estimated CTDIvol calculations appear to generally overestimate actual CTDIvol.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>26295647</pmid><doi>10.2214/AJR.14.13242</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-803X
ispartof American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2015-09, Vol.205 (3), p.592-598
issn 0361-803X
1546-3141
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1706209296
source American Roentgen Ray Society; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Algorithms
Child
Child, Preschool
Female
Humans
Infant
Male
Multidetector Computed Tomography - instrumentation
Radiation Dosage
Radiography, Abdominal
title Estimated Patient Dose Indexes in Adult and Pediatric MDCT: Comparison of Automatic Tube Voltage Selection With Fixed Tube Current, Fixed Tube Voltage, and Weight-Based Protocols
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T22%3A44%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Estimated%20Patient%20Dose%20Indexes%20in%20Adult%20and%20Pediatric%20MDCT:%20Comparison%20of%20Automatic%20Tube%20Voltage%20Selection%20With%20Fixed%20Tube%20Current,%20Fixed%20Tube%20Voltage,%20and%20Weight-Based%20Protocols&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20roentgenology%20(1976)&rft.au=Baker,%20Mark%20E&rft.date=2015-09&rft.volume=205&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=592&rft.epage=598&rft.pages=592-598&rft.issn=0361-803X&rft.eissn=1546-3141&rft_id=info:doi/10.2214/AJR.14.13242&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1706209296%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1706209296&rft_id=info:pmid/26295647&rfr_iscdi=true