XDose: toward online cross-validation of experimental and computational X-ray dose estimation.

PURPOSE: As the spectrum of X-ray procedures has increased both for diagnostic and for interventional cases, more attention is paid to X-ray dose management. While the medical benefit to the patient outweighs the risk of radiation injuries in almost all cases, reproducible studies on organ dose values help to plan preventive measures helping both patient as well as staff. Dose studies are either carried out retrospectively, experimentally using anthropomorphic phantoms, or computationally. When performed experimentally, it is helpful to combine them with simulations validating the measurements. In this paper, we show how such a dose simulation method, carried out together with actual X-ray experiments, can be realized to obtain reliable organ dose values efficiently. METHODS: A Monte Carlo simulation technique was developed combining down-sampling and super-resolution techniques for accelerated processing accompanying X-ray dose measurements. The target volume is down-sampled using the statistical mode first. The estimated dose distribution is then up-sampled using guided filtering and the high-resolution target volume as guidance image. Second, we present a comparison of dose estimates calculated with our Monte Carlo code experimentally obtained values for an anthropomorphic phantom using metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters. RESULTS: We reconstructed high-resolution dose distributions from coarse ones (down-sampling factor 2 to 16) with error rates ranging from 1.62 % to 4.91 %. Using down-sampled target volumes further reduced the computation time by 30 % to 60 %. Comparison of measured results to simulated dose values demonstrated high agreement with an average percentage error of under [Formula: see text] for all measurement points. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that Monte Carlo methods can be accelerated hardware-independently and still yield reliable results. This facilitates empirical dose studies that make use of online Monte Carlo simulations to easily cross-validate dose estimates on-site.

Pitfalls in interventional X-ray organ dose assessment-combined experimental and computational phantom study: application to prostatic artery embolization.

PURPOSE: With X-ray radiation protection and dose management constantly gaining interest in interventional radiology, novel procedures often undergo prospective dose studies using anthropomorphic phantoms to determine expected reference organ-equivalent dose values. Due to inherent uncertainties, such as impact of exact patient positioning, generalized geometry of the phantoms, limited dosimeter positioning options, and composition of tissue-equivalent materials, these dose values might not allow for patient-specific risk assessment. Therefore, first the aim of this study is to quantify the influence of these parameters on local X-ray dose to evaluate their relevance in the assessment of patient-specific organ doses. Second, this knowledge further enables validating a simulation approach, which allows employing physiological material models and patient-specific geometries. METHODS: Phantom dosimetry experiments using MOSFET dosimeters were conducted reproducing imaging scenarios in prostatic arterial embolization (PAE). Associated organ-equivalent dose of prostate, bladder, colon, and skin was determined. Dose deviation induced by possible small displacements of the patient was reproduced by moving the X-ray source. Dose deviation induced by geometric and material differences was investigated by analyzing two different commonly used phantoms. We reconstructed the experiments using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, a reference male geometry, and different material properties to validate simulations and experiments against each other. RESULTS: Overall, MC-simulated organ dose values are in accordance with the measured ones for the majority of cases. Marginal displacements of X-ray source relative to the phantoms lead to deviations of 6-135% in organ dose values, while skin dose remains relatively constant. Regarding the impact of phantom material composition, underestimation of internal organ dose values by 12-20% is prevalent in all simulated phantoms. Skin dose, however, can be estimated with low deviation of 1-8% at least for two materials. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective reference dose studies might not extend to precise patient-specific dose assessment. Therefore, online organ dose assessment tools, based on advanced patient modeling and MC methods, are desirable.