PMID- 24589395
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20141118
LR  - 20140304
IS  - 1558-349X (Electronic)
IS  - 1546-1440 (Linking)
VI  - 11
IP  - 3
DP  - 2014 Mar
TI  - Dose is not always what it seems: where very misleading values can result from 
      volume CT dose index and dose length product.
PG  - 233-7
LID - S1546-1440(13)00663-7 [pii]
LID - 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.10.010 [doi]
AB  - PURPOSE: The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and the dose-length product, commonly 
      reported for examinations performed on clinical CT scanners, should not be used 
      as surrogates for patient dose. This is because significant under or 
      overestimates of these actual values can occur when there is a mismatch between 
      the actual body size of the patient and the 16 cm or 32 cm diameter CTDIvol 
      phantoms. This mismatch can be exacerbated in pediatric body examinations because 
      of the fact that some manufacturers use the large diameter phantom while other 
      manufacturers use the small diameter phantom as the CTDIvol reference phantom. 
      METHOD: A clinical example is described for a pediatric patient with a 4-fold 
      difference in CTDIvol between a presurgical CT examination and a postsurgical CT 
      examination, even though the actual dose absorbed by the patient was about the 
      same. Using methods published by the American Association of Physicists in 
      Medicine, we calculated the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), and compared the 
      estimated measurement of dose using the SSDE with the CTDIvol. RESULTS: Using 
      SSDE significantly reduced the discrepancy in radiation dose estimates of CTDIvol 
      in the clinical study, and allowed dose estimate comparisons between scanners to 
      be more meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation dose estimates are more accurate when 
      using the SSDE metric in lieu of the CTDIvol metric for reporting and comparing 
      patient dose indices.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All 
      rights reserved.
FAU - Seibert, J Anthony
AU  - Seibert JA
AD  - Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, 
      Sacramento, California. Electronic address: jaseibert@ucdavis.edu.
FAU - Boone, John M
AU  - Boone JM
AD  - Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, 
      Sacramento, California.
FAU - Wootton-Gorges, Sandra L
AU  - Wootton-Gorges SL
AD  - Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, 
      Sacramento, California.
FAU - Lamba, Ramit
AU  - Lamba R
AD  - Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, 
      Sacramento, California.
LA  - eng
PT  - Case Reports
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - United States
TA  - J Am Coll Radiol
JT  - Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
JID - 101190326
SB  - IM
MH  - Adolescent
MH  - *Artifacts
MH  - *Body Size
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Radiation Dosage
MH  - Radiation Protection/*methods
MH  - Radiometry/*methods
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
MH  - Tomography, X-Ray Computed/*methods
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - CTDI(vol)
OT  - Pediatric CT dose
OT  - size-specific dose estimate (SSDE)
EDAT- 2014/03/05 06:00
MHDA- 2014/11/19 06:00
CRDT- 2014/03/05 06:00
PHST- 2013/10/06 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2013/10/09 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2014/03/05 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2014/03/05 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2014/11/19 06:00 [medline]
AID - S1546-1440(13)00663-7 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.10.010 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):233-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.10.010.