A comparison of pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation methods.

BACKGROUND: Computed Tomography (CT) contributes up to 50% of the medical exposure to the United States population. Children are considered to be at higher risk of developing radiation-induced tumors due to the young age of exposure and increased tissue radiosensitivity. Organ dose estimation is essential for pediatric and adult patient cancer risk assessment. The objective of this study is to validate the VirtualDose software in comparison to currently available software and methods for pediatric and adult CT organ dose estimation. METHODS: Five age groups of pediatric patients and adult patients were simulated by three organ dose estimators. Head, chest, abdomen-pelvis, and chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scans were simulated, and doses to organs both inside and outside the scan range were compared. For adults, VirtualDose was compared against ImPACT and CT-Expo. For pediatric patients, VirtualDose was compared to CT-Expo and compared to size-based methods from literature. Pediatric to adult effective dose ratios were also calculated with VirtualDose, and were compared with the ranges of effective dose ratios provided in ImPACT. RESULTS: In-field organs see less than 60% difference in dose between dose estimators. For organs outside scan range or distributed organs, a five times' difference can occur. VirtualDose agrees with the size-based methods within 20% difference for the organs investigated. Between VirtualDose and ImPACT, the pediatric to adult ratios for effective dose are compared, and less than 21% difference is observed for chest scan while more than 40% difference is observed for head-neck scan and abdomen-pelvis scan. For pediatric patients, 2 cm scan range change can lead to a five times dose difference in partially scanned organs. CONCLUSIONS: VirtualDose is validated against CT-Expo and ImPACT with relatively small discrepancies in dose for organs inside scan range, while large discrepancies in dose are observed for organs outside scan range. Patient-specific organ dose estimation is possible using the size-based methods, and VirtualDose agrees with size-based method for the organs investigated. Careful range selection for CT protocols is necessary for organ dose optimization for pediatric and adult patients.

Assessment of radiation safety instructions to patients based on measured dose rates following prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To validate radiation safety instructions to patients and to evaluate the potential radiation doses to members of the public after (125)I or (103)Pd prostate implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation dose rate measurements were made in the immediate postoperative period on 636 consecutive patients with stage T1-T2 prostate cancer who underwent transperineal (125)I or (103)Pd implantation at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center during the period from August 1995 through January 2003. RESULTS: The mean radiation dose rate at the anterior skin surface following a prostate implant was 37 microSv/hr for (125)I and 8 microSv/hr for (103)Pd. At 30 cm from the anterior skin surface, these dose rates were reduced to 6 microSv/hr for (125)I and 3 microSv/hr for (103)Pd. At 1 m from the anterior skin surface the dose rates from both types of implants were reduced to less than 1 microSv/hr. The effect of body weight on dose rates from (125)I sources was examined for a select sub-group of patients and the measured dose rate was found to decrease with increasing body weight. In another group of patients, dose rate measurements were made on both lateral skin surfaces and were less than 16.8 microSv/hr in all cases. Assuming a 33% occupancy factor and utilizing the mean measured dose rate for (125)I, the time required to reach an effective dose equivalent limit of 5 mSv for caregivers was estimated to be 19 days on contact with the skin surface. Using a similar calculation, the lifetime doses for (125)I at a distance of 30 cm from the anterior skin surface, as well as the lifetime doses for (103)Pd on contact with the skin surface and at 30 cm from the anterior skin surface can be shown to be less than 5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of cases available for this study permits a validation of radiation safety recommendations and provides concrete information from which the permitted exposure times following implantation can be estimated. The data support the conclusion that patients treated with these implants do not represent a radiation risk to members of the public.