Incident air kerma to absorbed organ dose conversion factors for breast and lung in PA thorax radiography: The effect of patient thickness and radiation quality

PURPOSE

Converting the measurable quantities to patient organ doses in projection radiography is usually based on a standard-sized patient model and a specific radiation quality, which are likely to differ from the real situation. Large inaccuracies can therefore be obtained in organ doses, because organ doses are dependent on the exposure parameters, exposure geometry and patient anatomy. In this study, the effect of radiation quality and patient thickness on the organ dose conversion factors were determined.

METHODS

In this study, the posterior-anterior projection radiograph of the thorax was selected in order to determine the effect of radiation quality (tube voltages of 70-130kV and total filtrations of 3mmAl to 4mmAl+0.2 mmCu) and patient thickness (anterior-posterior thicknesses of 19.4-30.8cm) on the breast and lung dose conversion factors. For this purpose, Monte Carlo simulation programs ImpactMC and PCXMC were used with computed tomography examination data of adult male and female patients and mathematical hermaphrodite phantoms, respectively.

RESULTS

Compared to the reference beam quality and patient thickness, the relative variation range in organ dose conversion factors was up to 74% for different radiation qualities and 122% for different patient thicknesses.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion factors should only be used with comprehensive understanding of the exposure conditions, considering the exposure parameters, exposure geometry and patient anatomy they are valid for. This study demonstrates that patient thickness-specific and radiation quality-specific conversion factors are needed in projection radiography.

Conformance of mean glandular dose from phantom and patient data in mammography

In mammography dosimetry, phantoms are often used to represent breast tissue. The conformance of phantom- and patient-based mean glandular dose (MGD) estimates was evaluated mainly from the aspect of diagnostic reference levels. Patient and phantom exposure data were collected for eight diagnostic and three screening mammography devices. More extensive assessments were performed for two devices. The average breast thickness was close to the nationally used reference of 50 mm in diagnostic (50 mm, SD = 13 mm, n = 5342) and screening (47 mm, SD = 13 mm, n = 395) examinations. The average MGD for all breasts differed by 2% from the MGD determined for breasts in the limited compressed thickness range of 40-60 mm. The difference between phantom- and patient-based MGD estimations was up to 30%. Therefore, phantom measurements cannot replace patient dose data in MGD determination.