Another CT dose related question

  • Context: Medical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter big man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    ct
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the estimation of effective dose in computed tomography (CT) scans, particularly focusing on the implications of varying scan angles on dose calculations. Participants explore the relationship between scan angle, dose length product (DLP), and the k-factor used for effective dose estimation, while addressing uncertainties in the application of formulas for different scan angles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of using the effective dose formula for different scan angles, suggesting that a 240-degree scan may not uniformly irradiate all organs compared to a 360-degree scan.
  • Another participant notes that the definition of CTDI does not reference scan angle, indicating that scan angle affects the number of projections but not the dose estimate directly.
  • A participant proposes that if the scan angle is reduced, the estimated dose should be adjusted by a factor reflecting the reduced information collected.
  • There is a discussion about whether reducing scan angle affects scan time, with some suggesting that scan time remains constant while others argue that it may not lead to a dose reduction if mA is kept the same.
  • Participants discuss the implications of using higher mA and reduced scan angles in scenarios involving patient motion, suggesting that this could help mitigate motion artifacts.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the image reconstruction process in CT systems and seeks resources for better understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the impact of scan angle on dose estimation and whether the same effective dose formula can be applied across different angles. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of scan angle on dose calculations and the relationship between scan time and projections.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the image reconstruction process and the assumptions behind dose calculations, particularly regarding the relationship between scan angle, mA, and effective dose.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in medical imaging, radiology, and radiation safety may find this discussion relevant, particularly those looking to understand the complexities of dose estimation in CT scans.

big man
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
Sorry for having to ask another question, but there is just one more thing that I want to get my head around.

Let's say you have this protocol:

Standard Resolution
64/40 x 0.625 collimation
2.5mm thickness
40/25 mm increment
240 scan angle
0.4s rotation
120 kv
55-165 mas
512 matrix
75% prospective phase
220 DFOV
approx 120 mm scan length
Filter CB
100 mAs

OK now here is my issue. I've been told that you can estimate effective dose by using the following formula:

[tex]Effective dose = DLP * k[/tex]

Now the k-factor is a normalised conversion factor and can be found at this site:

http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/mainindex.htm ------- Appendix 1 of Chapter 1

What I don't understand is the scan angle. I thought that the CTDI and therefore the DLP were given for 360 degree scans. So therefore your estimation of effective dose (if you only use a 240 degree scan angle) wouldn't be correct if you used the above formula.

For example, let's say that you performed 2 scans of the chest. For both scans you have the EXACT same protocol (same kVp and mAs) except for the scan angle. One has a scan angle of 180 degrees and one has a full 360 degree scan angle. I'm just not understanding how you can use the same formula for both these situations. I mean if you are scanning 180 degrees that is centred beneath the patient then you aren't uniformly irradiating all the organs in the chest region are you? I'm really confused about this because I just don't think that you can use that formula yet I've been told that the dose isn't dependent on the total scan angle?

I hope this hasn't been to muddled of an explanation, but I'd appreciate any assistance.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
There's nothing in the definition of CTDI that references the scan angle. Scan angle just determines the number of projections used to reconstruct the slice.

Keep in mind that diagnostic dose estimates are just that, estimates. At best whatever number you end up with is only going to be accurate to within a factor of 2-3 at best. Most of the time, if I feel the dose estimates I calculate are within an order of magnitude, I'm happy with that.
 
Last edited:
If you used a scan angle of 240 instead of 360, wouldn't you multiply your estimated DI by .66 (2/3) - because you are essentially cutting the amt of info you are collecting by approx .66?
 
if you're maintaining the same mAs per slice though, the mA needs to go up by 3/2 to compensate for the reduced scan time
 
Does reducing the projections (scan angle) actually reduce the time - and visa versa?

I was under the impression that when I reduced my time, I was still getting 360 projections - just with faster rotation.

If you leave the mA the same, are you're saying reducing the scan angle would not be an acceptable method of reducing dose? Normally, I would just lower my mA or time to reduce the dose.

If you had a moving target (drunk) on the table would it be a good idea to up the mA and decrease the scan angle to have less chance of motion?
 
Tsu said:
Does reducing the projections (scan angle) actually reduce the time - and visa versa?

I was under the impression that when I reduced my time, I was still getting 360 projections - just with faster rotation.
this is still true. As I'm sure you're aware, scan angle normally isn't a parameter that's available to be modified. On all the scanners I've played with, when time is a modifiable parameter it usually affects the tube rotation speed. However newer scanners can use a partial scan technique (partial reconstruction would probably be a more accurate term) for doing cardiac studies which enables them to capture heart motion and do retrospective cardiac gating. Reconstructing slices based on a limited number of projections is all handled by the recon algorithm. I've never seen it under user control on any of the scanners I've played with.

If you leave the mA the same, are you're saying reducing the scan angle would not be an acceptable method of reducing dose? Normally, I would just lower my mA or time to reduce the dose.
since the tube still has to rotate the full 360 deg and is probably still producing x-rays for the whole rotation, the total scan time won't be reduced and total exposure to the patient would remain the same. partial scanning just gives you the ability to reconstruct more slices per rotation

If you had a moving target (drunk) on the table would it be a good idea to up the mA and decrease the scan angle to have less chance of motion?
you could reduce the scan time (increase rotation speed) and use a slightly higher pitch to reduce the total scan time, or strap the patient in really tight. a partial scan technique could potentially reduce the amount of motion in the reconstructed slices.
 
Thanks, imabug!
 
imabug said:
or strap the patient in really tight.
I realize this is a serious response, but it made me giggle a bit, because it's exactly the sort of answer I would have suggested knowing nothing else about operating the equipment. :biggrin:
 
Strapping and taping is just a given in my job. Expecially if the patient has been drinking or appears to be on a recreational pharmaceutical of some kind.
 
  • #10
Thanks again for taking the time to explain this stuff to me Imabug.

So basically you are saying that if you have used a 240 scan angle it means that this is all the information you have used to reconstruct the slice, but you have not actually reduced dose. Even with prospective gating the tube is still "active" for the full 360 degree rotation then?

I think that my main problem is that I do not have a clear visualisation of the image reconstruction in a CT system. Can you recommend any good resources regarding CTs that might clearly show this at all?
 
  • #11
big man said:
Thanks again for taking the time to explain this stuff to me Imabug.

So basically you are saying that if you have used a 240 scan angle it means that this is all the information you have used to reconstruct the slice, but you have not actually reduced dose. Even with prospective gating the tube is still "active" for the full 360 degree rotation then?

yes. in practice, the x-ray tube is energized for the entire rotation. otherwise you're just wasting useful opportunities to collect additional data. Partial angle reconstruction is handled in the reconstruction algorithm and simply determines the number of projections used to reconstruct the slice.

you can certainly envision a CT scanner that does partial angle acquisitions by having the x-ray beam on for x degrees and then turning off for the remainding 360-x degrees. Then the radiation dose delivered depends on the constraints you set on kVp, mA and time. If you specify that the mAs is constant compared to a full 360 degree acquisition, then because the scan time is reduced mA needs to go up. Thus radiation dose remains the same.

I think that my main problem is that I do not have a clear visualisation of the image reconstruction in a CT system. Can you recommend any good resources regarding CTs that might clearly show this at all?

go to CTSim.org and download the program. It's a CT simulation program that may help shed some light on the mechanics of CT acquisition and reconstruction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
14K