Comparison of Application Value of Different Radiation Dose Evaluation Methods in Evaluating Radiation Dose of Adult Thoracic and Abdominal CT Scan

Jimin He; Guanwei Dong; Yi Deng; Jun He; ZhiGang Xiu; Fanzi Feng

doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.860968

Comparison of Application Value of Different Radiation Dose Evaluation Methods in Evaluating Radiation Dose of Adult Thoracic and Abdominal CT Scan

Front Surg. 2022 Mar 25:9:860968. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.860968. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Jimin He¹, Guanwei Dong¹, Yi Deng², Jun He¹, ZhiGang Xiu¹, Fanzi Feng¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiology, The First People's Hospital of Longquanyi District, Chengdu, China.
² Department of Rehabilitation, The First People's Hospital of Longquanyi District, Chengdu, China.

Abstract

Objective: To explore the differences among volumetric CT dose index (CTDI_vol), body-specific dose assessment (SSDE_ED) based on effective diameter (ED), and SSDE_WED based on water equivalent diameter (WED) in evaluating the radiation dose of adult thoracic and abdominal CT scanning.

Methods: From January 2021 to October 2021, enhanced chest CT scans of 100 patients and enhanced abdomen CT scans of another 100 patients were collected. According to the body mass index (BMI), they can be divided into groups A and D (BMI < 20 kg/m²), groups B and E (20 kg/m² ≤ BMI ≤ 24.9 kg/m²), and groups C and F (BMI > 24.9 kg/m²). The CTDIvol, anteroposterior diameter (AP), and the left and rght diameter (LAT) of all the patients were recorded, and the ED, water equivalent diameter (WED), the conversion factor (f _size,ED), (f _{size, WED}), SSDE_ED, and SSDE_WED were calculated. The differences were compared between the different groups.

Results: The AP, LAT, ED, and WED of groups B, E, C, and F were higher than those of groups A and D, and those of groups C and F were higher than those of groups B and E (P < 0.05). The f _size,ED and f _{size, WED} of groups B, E, C, and F are lower than those of groups A and D, and those of groups C and F are lower than those of groups B and E (P < 0.05). CTDI_vol, SSDE_ED, and SSDE_WED in groups B, E, C, and F are higher than those in groups A and D, and those in groups C and F are higher than those in groups B and E (p < 0.05). In the same group, patients with chest- and abdomen-enhanced have higher SSDE_WED and SSDE_ED than CTDI_vol, patients with chest-enhanced CT scans have higher SSDE_WED than SSDE_ED, and patients with abdomen-enhanced CT scans have higher SSDE_ED than SSDE_WED (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: CTDIvol and ED-based SSDEED underestimated the radiation dose of the subject exposed, where the patient was actually exposed to a greater dose. However, SSDE_WED based on WED considers better the difference in patient size and attenuation characteristics, and can more accurately evaluate the radiation dose received by patients of different sizes during the chest and abdomen CT scan.

Keywords: CT scanning; body specific dose assessment; effective diameter; equivalent diameter of water; volume CT dose index.