Radiation dosimetry of 18F-FDG PET/CT: incorporating exam-specific parameters in dose estimates
Tóm tắt
Whole body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is the standard of care in oncologic diagnosis and staging, and patient radiation dose must be well understood to balance exam benefits with the risk from radiation exposure. Although reference PET/CT patient doses are available, the potential for widely varying total dose prompts evaluation of clinic-specific patient dose. The aims of this study were to use exam-specific information to characterize the radiation dosimetry of PET/CT exams that used two different CT techniques for adult oncology patients and evaluate the practicality of employing an exam-specific approach to dose estimation. Whole body PET/CT scans from two sets of consecutive adult patients were retrospectively reviewed. One set received a PET scan with a standard registration CT and the other a PET scan with a diagnostic quality CT. PET dose was calculated by modifying the standard reference phantoms in OLINDA/EXM 1.1 with patient-specific organ mass. CT dose was calculated using patient-specific data in ImPACT. International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 tissue weighting coefficients were used for effective dose. One hundred eighty three adult scans were evaluated (95 men, 88 women). The mean patient-specific effective dose from a mean injected 18F-FDG activity of 450 ± 32 MBq was 9.0 ± 1.6 mSv. For all standard PET/CT patients, mean effective mAs was 39 ± 11 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 5.0 ± 1.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 14 ± 1.3 mSv. For all diagnostic PET/CT patients, mean effective mAs was 120 ± 51 mAs, mean CT effective dose was 15.4 ± 5.0 mSv and mean total effective dose was 24.4 ± 4.3 mSv. The five organs receiving the highest organ equivalent doses in all exams were bladder, heart, brain, liver and lungs. Patient-specific parameters optimize the patient dosimetry utilized in the medical justification of whole body PET/CT referrals and optimization of PET and CT acquisition parameters. Incorporating patient-specific data into dose estimates is a worthwhile effort for characterizing patient dose, and the specific dosimetric information assists in the justification of risk and optimization of PET/CT.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Czernin J, Schelbert H. PET/CT Imaging: Facts, opinions, hopes, and questions. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(Suppl):1S–3S.
Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: Literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(1):78S–88S.
Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tompgraphy--imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imag Bio. 2004;6:188–89.
ICRP. Radiological Protection and Safety in Medicine. A Report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 1996;26:1–47.
Brink JA, Amis E. Image wisely: a campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. Radiology. 2010;257(3):601–2.
ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–332.
Stabin MG. Uncertainties in Internal Dose Calculations for Radiopharmaceuticals. J Nucl Med. 2008;119:853–60.
Shrimpton PC, Wall B, Yoshizumi TT, Hurwitz LM, Goodman PC. Effective Dose and Dose-Length Product in CT. Radiology. 2009;250(2):604–5.
Hendee WR, I.O.f.M.P. Policy Statement of the International Organization for Medical Physics. Radiology. 2013;267(2):326–7.
Health Physics Society. Radiation Risk in Perspective. Health Physics Society. https://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf.
AAPM. AAPM Position Statement on Radiation Risks from Medical Imaging Procedures. PP 25-A. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. http://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=318&type=PP. Accessed 7 Jun 2016.
Dauer LT, Branets I, Stabulas-Savage J, et al. Optimising Radiographic Bitewing Examination to Adult and Juvenile Patients Through the Use of Anthropomorphic Phantoms. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2013;158:51–8.
NCRP. Uncertainties in Internal Radiation Dose Assessment. NCRP Report 164. NCRP Publications, Bethesda, MD; 2009.
UNSCEAR. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Fifty-ninth Session. General Assembly Official Records Sixty Seveth Session, Supplemental No. 46.A/67/46. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2012/UNSCEAR2012Report_15-08936_eBook_website.pdf. Accessed 7 Jun 2016.
IAEA. Radiation Protection of Patients PET/CT scanning. https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/6_OtherClinicalSpecialities/PETCTscan.htm. Accessed 7 Jun 2016.
Kamel E, Hany T, Burger C, et al. CT vs 68Ge Attenuation Correction in a Combined PET/CT System: Evaluation of the Effect of Lowering CT Tube Current. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(3):346–50.
Kalender WA, Schmidt B, Zankl M, Schmidt M. A PC Program for Estimating Organ Dose and Effective Dose Values in Computed Tomography. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(3):555–62.
Kalender W, Deak P, Smal Y. Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose length product. Radiology. 2010;257(1):158–66.
ICRP. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man. ICRP Publication 23. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1975.
Measurements, I.C.o.R.U.a. Measurement of Dose Equivalents from External Photon and Electron Radiations. ICRU Report 47. Bethesda, MD: ICRU; 1992.
ICRP. Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals: Addendum 2 to ICRP Publication 53, Also Includes Addendum 1 to ICRP Publication 72. ICRP Publication 80. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press; 1998.
Brenner DJ, Elliston C. Estimated Radiation Risks Potentially Associated with Full-Body CT Screening. Radiology. 2012;232:735–8.
Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, Ziegler S, Munzig W, Muller S, Beyer T. Radiation Exposured of PAtients Undergoing Whole-Body Dual-Modality 18F-FDG PET/CT Examinations. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(4):608–13.
Groves AM, Owen K, Courtney HM, et al. 16-detector Multiclice CT: Dosimetry Estimation by TLD Measurement Compared with Monte Carlo Simulation. Br J Radiol. 2004;77:662–5.
Huang B, Law M, Khong PL. Whole-Body PET/CT Scanning: Estimation of Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk. Radiology. 2009;251(1):166–74.
Khamwan K, Krisanachinda A, Pasawang P. The Determination of Patient Dose From F-18-FDG PET/CT Examination. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;141:50–5.
Mahmud MH et al. Estimation of patient radiation dose from whole body18F- FDG PET/CT examination in cancer imaging: a preliminary study. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2014;546:012008.
Leide-Svegborn S. Radiation Exposure of Patients and Personnel from a PET/CT Procedure with 18F-FDG. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;139:208–13.
Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, et al. Effective Doses to Adult and Pediatric Patients from Multislice Computed Tomography: A Method Based on Energy Imparted. Med Phys. 2006;33(10):3846–56.
Tsalafoutas IA, Koukourakis G. Patient Dose Considerations in Computed Tomography Examinations. World J Radiol. 2004;2(7):262–8.
Wu TH, Huang Y, Lee JJ, et al. Radiation Exposure During Transmission Measurements: Comparison Between CT- and Germanium-based Techniques with a Current PET Scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;77:662–5.
Stabin MG, 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.
Bolch WE, Eckerman K, Sgouros G, Thomas SR. MIRD Pamphlet No 21: A Generalized Schema for Radiopharmaceutical Dosimetry-Standardization of Nomenclature. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(3):477–84.
ICRP. Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum 3 to ICRP Publication 53. ICRP Publication 106. Ann ICRP. 2008;38(1-2):1–197.
Hays MT, Watson E, Thomas SR, Stabin M. MIRD Dose Estimate Report No 19: Radiation Absorbed Dose Estimates from 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(2):210–4.
Deloar HM, Fujiwara T, Shidahara M, Nakamura T, Watabe H, Narita Y, Itoh M, Miyake M, Watanuki S. Estimation of Absorbed Dose for 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose Using Whole-Body Positron Emission Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25(6):585–74.
Clark LD, Stabin M, Fernald MJ, Brill AB. Changes in Radiation Dose with Variations in Human Anatomy: Moderately and Severely Obese Adults. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:929–32.
ICRP. Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection: Reference Values. A Report of Age- and Gender-Related Differences in the Anatomical and Physiological Characteristics of Reference Individuals. Ann ICRP. 2002;32:5–265.
Marine PM, Stabin MG, Fernald MJ, Brill AB. Changes in Radiation Dose with Variations in Human Anatomy: Larger and Smaller Normal-Stature Adults. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(5):806–11.
ICRP. ICRP Publication 105. Radiation Protection in Medicine. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–63.
Grimes J, Celler A. Comparison of Internal Dose Estimates Obtained Using Organ-Level, Voxel 5 Value, and Monte Carlo Techniques. Med Phys. 2014;41(9):92501.
Ding A, Gu J, Liu H, Caracappa P, Xu XG. The Design of a New PC Software for Estimating Patient Doses from CT Scans. Health Phys. 2009;97(1):S56.
AAPM. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations: Report of AAPM Task Group 204. College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2011.
Saade C, H.M., Ammous A et al, Weight-based Protocols during Whole Body FDG PET/CT Significantly Reduces Radiation Dose without Compromising Image Quality, in RSNA 2015 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.