接受CT检查的成人器官剂量评估:蒙特卡罗模拟三种软件应用的比较

IF 1.8 3区 工程技术 Q3 CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR Applied Radiation and Isotopes Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1016/j.apradiso.2025.111740
Maria Hakme , Ziad Francis , Chadia Rizk , Georges Fares
{"title":"接受CT检查的成人器官剂量评估:蒙特卡罗模拟三种软件应用的比较","authors":"Maria Hakme ,&nbsp;Ziad Francis ,&nbsp;Chadia Rizk ,&nbsp;Georges Fares","doi":"10.1016/j.apradiso.2025.111740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Understanding organ dose during CT scans is crucial due to cancer risks from low-level radiation exposure. This study aims to analyze and compare different methods for estimating CT organ doses in adult male and female patients, assessing the compatibility of NCICT with standard phantoms and NCICT with body size adjustment with GEANT4 simulations. It also evaluates the impact of different CT manufacturers on organ dose calculations. Previous research used various phantoms to represent organ doses across age groups. This study utilizes DICOM images from real adult patients undergoing CT scans to evaluate organ dose using the GEANT4 simulation toolkit. A retrospective analysis of 240 CT scans (head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis) compared GEANT4 dose estimates to the software tool NCICT. Data from Siemens and Philips CT scanners were included. Organ doses for 34 organs were calculated using Siemens patient DICOM data, while Philips estimates made using only NCICT with body size adjustment. Statistical analysis assessed differences in organ doses by gender and scanner type. Organ doses for the brain, spinal cord, and liver were higher in females (48.1, 4.9, and 6.7 mGy) compared to males (42.5, 4.4, and 6.3 mGy). NCICT with body size adjustment estimates were more consistent with GEANT4 (differences up to 18%) compared to NCICT with standard phantoms (differences up to 46%). Notable variations were found between Siemens and Philips scanners, despite identical detector rows. Accurate models and scanner-specific differences are critical for reliable radiation dose assessments, emphasizing the need for tailored dosimetry to enhance patient safety.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8096,"journal":{"name":"Applied Radiation and Isotopes","volume":"220 ","pages":"Article 111740"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of organ dose for adult undergoing CT examinations: Comparison of three software applications using Monte Carlo simulation\",\"authors\":\"Maria Hakme ,&nbsp;Ziad Francis ,&nbsp;Chadia Rizk ,&nbsp;Georges Fares\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apradiso.2025.111740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Understanding organ dose during CT scans is crucial due to cancer risks from low-level radiation exposure. This study aims to analyze and compare different methods for estimating CT organ doses in adult male and female patients, assessing the compatibility of NCICT with standard phantoms and NCICT with body size adjustment with GEANT4 simulations. It also evaluates the impact of different CT manufacturers on organ dose calculations. Previous research used various phantoms to represent organ doses across age groups. This study utilizes DICOM images from real adult patients undergoing CT scans to evaluate organ dose using the GEANT4 simulation toolkit. A retrospective analysis of 240 CT scans (head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis) compared GEANT4 dose estimates to the software tool NCICT. Data from Siemens and Philips CT scanners were included. Organ doses for 34 organs were calculated using Siemens patient DICOM data, while Philips estimates made using only NCICT with body size adjustment. Statistical analysis assessed differences in organ doses by gender and scanner type. Organ doses for the brain, spinal cord, and liver were higher in females (48.1, 4.9, and 6.7 mGy) compared to males (42.5, 4.4, and 6.3 mGy). NCICT with body size adjustment estimates were more consistent with GEANT4 (differences up to 18%) compared to NCICT with standard phantoms (differences up to 46%). Notable variations were found between Siemens and Philips scanners, despite identical detector rows. Accurate models and scanner-specific differences are critical for reliable radiation dose assessments, emphasizing the need for tailored dosimetry to enhance patient safety.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Radiation and Isotopes\",\"volume\":\"220 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111740\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Radiation and Isotopes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969804325000855\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Radiation and Isotopes","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969804325000855","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

了解CT扫描期间的器官剂量是至关重要的,因为低水平辐射暴露有致癌风险。本研究旨在分析和比较成年男性和女性患者CT器官剂量估算的不同方法,通过GEANT4模拟评估NCICT与标准幻影和NCICT与体型调整的兼容性。它还评估了不同CT制造商对器官剂量计算的影响。以前的研究使用不同的幻影来代表不同年龄组的器官剂量。本研究利用真实成年患者接受CT扫描的DICOM图像,使用GEANT4模拟工具包评估器官剂量。回顾性分析240次CT扫描(头部、胸部和腹部-骨盆),将GEANT4剂量估计值与软件工具NCICT进行比较。数据来自西门子和飞利浦CT扫描仪。34个器官的器官剂量使用西门子DICOM数据计算,而飞利浦仅使用调整体型的NCICT进行估计。统计分析评估了不同性别和扫描仪类型的器官剂量差异。大脑、脊髓和肝脏的器官剂量在女性中(48.1、4.9和6.7毫戈瑞)高于男性(42.5、4.4和6.3毫戈瑞)。与具有标准幻影的ncct(差异高达46%)相比,具有身体尺寸调整估计的ncct与GEANT4更一致(差异高达18%)。在西门子和飞利浦的扫描仪之间发现了显著的差异,尽管相同的探测器排。准确的模型和扫描仪特异性差异对于可靠的辐射剂量评估至关重要,强调需要量身定制剂量学以增强患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment of organ dose for adult undergoing CT examinations: Comparison of three software applications using Monte Carlo simulation
Understanding organ dose during CT scans is crucial due to cancer risks from low-level radiation exposure. This study aims to analyze and compare different methods for estimating CT organ doses in adult male and female patients, assessing the compatibility of NCICT with standard phantoms and NCICT with body size adjustment with GEANT4 simulations. It also evaluates the impact of different CT manufacturers on organ dose calculations. Previous research used various phantoms to represent organ doses across age groups. This study utilizes DICOM images from real adult patients undergoing CT scans to evaluate organ dose using the GEANT4 simulation toolkit. A retrospective analysis of 240 CT scans (head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis) compared GEANT4 dose estimates to the software tool NCICT. Data from Siemens and Philips CT scanners were included. Organ doses for 34 organs were calculated using Siemens patient DICOM data, while Philips estimates made using only NCICT with body size adjustment. Statistical analysis assessed differences in organ doses by gender and scanner type. Organ doses for the brain, spinal cord, and liver were higher in females (48.1, 4.9, and 6.7 mGy) compared to males (42.5, 4.4, and 6.3 mGy). NCICT with body size adjustment estimates were more consistent with GEANT4 (differences up to 18%) compared to NCICT with standard phantoms (differences up to 46%). Notable variations were found between Siemens and Philips scanners, despite identical detector rows. Accurate models and scanner-specific differences are critical for reliable radiation dose assessments, emphasizing the need for tailored dosimetry to enhance patient safety.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Radiation and Isotopes
Applied Radiation and Isotopes 工程技术-核科学技术
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
406
审稿时长
13.5 months
期刊介绍: Applied Radiation and Isotopes provides a high quality medium for the publication of substantial, original and scientific and technological papers on the development and peaceful application of nuclear, radiation and radionuclide techniques in chemistry, physics, biochemistry, biology, medicine, security, engineering and in the earth, planetary and environmental sciences, all including dosimetry. Nuclear techniques are defined in the broadest sense and both experimental and theoretical papers are welcome. They include the development and use of α- and β-particles, X-rays and γ-rays, neutrons and other nuclear particles and radiations from all sources, including radionuclides, synchrotron sources, cyclotrons and reactors and from the natural environment. The journal aims to publish papers with significance to an international audience, containing substantial novelty and scientific impact. The Editors reserve the rights to reject, with or without external review, papers that do not meet these criteria. Papers dealing with radiation processing, i.e., where radiation is used to bring about a biological, chemical or physical change in a material, should be directed to our sister journal Radiation Physics and Chemistry.
期刊最新文献
Radionuclides distribution and hazards of black shales: A case study in El Hommr area using gamma-ray spectrometry Estimation of airborne contamination during therapeutic radioiodine-131(I-131) administration: A comparative study between capsule and solution forms A novel peak-searching method for multiple radioisotopes based on deep learning CaSO4:Tm thermoluminescent semi-spherical-shaped pellets for improved angular dependence dosimeters Monte Carlo studies on Fully Bayesian Unfolding for a multi-layer silicon beta-ray spectrometer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1