Progress in Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회지:의학물리)

Korean Society of Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회)
권호 표지

Reducing of Craniofacial Radiation Dose Using Automatic Exposure Control Technique in the 64 Multi-Detector Computed Tomography

64 다중 검출기 전산화단층촬영에서 관전류 자동노출조절 기법을 이용한 두개부 방사선량 감소 정도 평가

  • Seoung, Youl-Hun (Department of Biomedical Engineering, Research Institute of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Yong-Ok (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Choe, Bo-Young (Department of Biomedical Engineering, Research Institute of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 성열훈 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 의공학교실 생체의공학연구소) ;
  • 김영옥 (분당서울대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 최보영 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 의공학교실 생체의공학연구소)
  • Received : 2010.02.17
  • Accepted : 2010.04.21
  • Published : 2010.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of reducing of craniofacial radiation dose using automatic exposure control (AEC) technique in the 64 multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). We used SOMATOM Definition 64 multi-detector CT, and head of whole body phantom (KUPBU-50, Kyoto Kagaku CO. Ltd). The protocol were helical scan method with 120 kVp, 1 sec of rotation time, 5 mm of slice thickness and increment, 250 mm of FOV, $512{\times}512$ of matrix size, $64{\times}0.625\;mm$ of collimation, and 1 of pitch. The evaluation of dose reducing effect was compared the fixed tube current of 350 with AEC technique. The image quality was measured the noise using standard deviation of CT number. The range of craniofacial bone was to mentum end from calvaria apex, which devided three regions: calvaria~superciliary ridge (1 segment), superciliary ridge~acanthion (2 segment), and acanthion~mentum (3 segment). In the fixed tube current technique, CTDIvol was 57.7 mGy, DLP was $640.2\;mGy{\cdot}cm$ in the all regions. The AEC technique was showed that 1 segment were 30.7 mGy of CTDIvol, 340.7 $mGy{\cdot}cm$ of DLP, 2 segment were 46.5 mGy of CTDIvol, $515.0\;mGy{\cdot}cm$ of DLP, and 3 segment were 30.3 mGy of CTDIvol, $337.0\;mGy{\cdot}cm$ of DLP. The standard deviation of CT number was 2.622 with the fixed tube current technique and 3.023 with the AEC technique in the 1 segment, was 3.118 with the fixed tube current technique and 3.379 with the AEC technique in the 2 segment, was 2.670 with the fixed tube current technique and 3.186 with the AEC technique in the 3 segment. The craniofacial radiation dose using AEC Technique in the 64 MDCT was evaluated the usefulness of reducing for the eye, the parotid and thyroid with high radiation sensitivity particularly.

64 multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT)에서 두개부의 과도한 선량이 문제가 되어 고정관류기법과 관전류 자동노출조절(automatic exposure control, AEC) 기법을 이용하여 선량 감소 정도를 비교 평가하고자 한다. 연구에 사용한 장비는 Siemens사의 SOMATOM Definition 64 multi-detector CT를 이용했으며, Whole body phantom (KUPBU-50, Kyoto Kagaku CO. Ltd)의 두개부를 사용했다. 실험 protocol은 helical scan 방식을 적용하여 120 kVp, rotation time은 1 sec, slice thickness와 increment는 각각 5 mm, FOV는 250 mm, matrix size는 $512{\times}512$, collimation은 $64{\times}0.625\;mm$, pitch는 1로 조사하였다. 선량감소효과의 측정방법은 관전류를 350 mAs로 고정한 방법과 AEC 기법을 적용한 방법으로 나누어 평가하였으며, 영상품질은 CT number의 표준편차를 이용하여 영상의 잡음을 측정하였다. 이 때 두개부(craniofacial bone)는 머리덮개뼈(calvaria) 끝부분에서 눈썹활(superciliary ridge)까지를 1구역, 논썹활 아래부터 코가시점(acanthion)까지를 2구역, 그리고 코가시점 아래부터 턱(mentum)끝까지를 3구역으로 정의하여 측정하였다. 고정관류기법에서 구역별로 CTDIvol은 57.7 mGy였으며, DLP는 $640.2\;mGy{\cdot}cm$로 동일하였다. AEC 기법을 적용한 1구역은 CTDIvol: 30.7 mGy, DLP: $340.7\;mGy{\cdot}cm$, 2구역은 CTDIvol: 46.5 mGy, DLP: $515.0\;mGy{\cdot}cm$, 그리고 3구역은 CTDIvol: 30.3 mGy, DLP: $337.0\;mGy{\cdot}cm$으로 나타났다. 영상품질을 나타내는 CT number의 표준편차는 1구역에서 고정 관류기법은 2.6, AEC 기법은 3.0, 2구역에서 고정 관류기법은 3.1, AEC 기법은 3.4, 3구역에서 고정 관류기법은 2.7, AEC 기법은 3.2으로 측정되었다. 64 MDCT에서의 AEC 기법은 기존의 고정관류법에 비해 안구, 이하선 그리고 갑상선 부위에 대해 큰 선량 감소효과가 나타났으며, 두개부의 방사선량을 감소시키는데 매우 유용한 기법으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH: Four multidetector-rowhelical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 215:55-62 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00ap3755
  2. Dawson P: Patient dose in multi-slice CT: Why is it increasingand does it matter? Br J Radiol 77:S10-S13 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/23162044
  3. Yates SJ, Pike LC, Goldstone KE: Effect of multi-slicescanners on patient dose from routine CT examinations in EastAnglia. Br J Radiol 77:472-478 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/21927258
  4. Frush DP: CT radiation dose optimization in children. Presented at Advances in Multi-detector CT Meeting, Washington,DC (2003)
  5. Fox SH: Emerging developments in multi-detector CT. Presented at Advances in Multi-detector CT Meeting, Washington,DC (2003)
  6. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al:Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performedin the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071-2077 (2009)
  7. ICRP Publication 60. Radiation protection. Recommendations ofthe International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press 68 (1990)
  8. Pinsky HM, Dyda S, Pinsky RW, Misch KA, SarmentDP: Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements usingcone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:410-416 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20987648
  9. White SC: Assessment of radiation risk from dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 21:118-126 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.21.3.1397466
  10. Kim SY, Han JW, Park IW: Comparison of cone beam CTand conventional CT in absorbed and effective dose. Koean J Oral maxillofac Radiol 38:7-15 (2008)
  11. Food & Drug Administration: Dear Healthcare ProfessionalLetter. Seoul, Korea (2009)
  12. Iball GR, Brettle DS, Moore AC: Assessment of tube currentmodulation in pelvic CT. Br J Radiol 79:62-70 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/50019934
  13. Rizzo S, Kalra M, Schmidt B, et al: Comparison of angularand combined automatic tube current modulation techniques withconstant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. Am J Roentgenol 186:673-679 (2006) https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1513
  14. Kalra MK, Rizzo S, Maher MM, et al: Chest CT performedwith Z-Axis modulation: scanning protocol and radiation dose. Radiology 237:303-308 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2371041227
  15. Namasivayam S, Kalra MK, Pottala KM, Waldrop SM,Hudgins PA: Optimization of Z-Axis Automatic ExposureControl for Multidetector Row CT Evaluation of Neck andComparison with fixed tube current technique for image qualityand radiation dose. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27:2221-2225 (2006)
  16. Kalra MK, Naz N, Rizzo SM, Blake MA: ComputedTomography Radiation Dose Optimization: Scanning Protocolsand Clinical Applications of Automatic Exposure Control. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 34:171-181 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2005.06.002
  17. Kalra MK, Rizzo SM, Novelline RA: Reducing radiationdose in emergency computed tomography with automatic exposurecontrol techniques. Emerg Radiol 11:267-274 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-004-0395-7
  18. Pavlicek W, Horton J, Turco R: Evaluation of the MDHIndustrie, Inc. pencil cahmaber for direct beam CT measurements. Health Phys 37:773-774 (1979)
  19. IEC: Medical Electrical Equipment. Part 2-44: Particular requirementsfor the safety of x-ray equipment for computedtomography. IEC publication No. 60601-2-44. Ed. 2.1. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Central Office, Geneva,Switzerland (2002)
  20. European Commission: European guidelines on quality crietiafor computed tomography, Report EUR 16262 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg(2000)
  21. Seeram E: Computed Tomography: Physical Principles, Clinical Applications, and Quality Control. Saunders Book Company, British Columbia (2009), pp. 202-203
  22. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr: CT dosereduction and dose management tools: Overview of availableoptions. Radio Graphics 26:503-512 (2006)
  23. Nicholas K: CT scanner automatic exposure control system.The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency report 05016 (2005)
  24. Lewis M, Keat N, Edyvean S: Report 06013: 32 to 64 sliceCT scanner comparison report version 14. London, England:ImPACT, 2006. Available at: http://www.impactscan.org/reports/Report06013. Accessed June 16, 2008