Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30508315›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019

Organ doses evaluation for chest computed tomography procedures with TL dosimeters: Comparison with Monte Carlo simulations.

Louise Giansante, Juliana C Martins, Denise Y Nersissian, Karen C Kiers, Fernando U Kay, Marcio V Y Sawamura, Choonsik Lee, Eloisa M M S Gebrim, Paulo R Costa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of Co-doping EuLuminescence : the journal of biological and chemical luminescence · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Conversion factors to derive organ doses for canine subjects undergoing CT examinations.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Louise GiansanteGroup of Radiation Dosimetry and Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo (IFUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Juliana C MartinsGroup of Radiation Dosimetry and Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo (IFUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Denise Y NersissianGroup of Radiation Dosimetry and Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo (IFUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Karen C KiersGroup of Radiation Dosimetry and Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo (IFUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Fernando U KayInstitute of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo (InRad), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Marcio V Y SawamuraInstitute of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo (InRad), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Choonsik LeeDivision of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA.
Eloisa M M S GebrimInstitute of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo (InRad), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Paulo R CostaGroup of Radiation Dosimetry and Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo (IFUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRNational Cancer Institute · USVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Joint CNPq/FAPESP INCT Project 57659/2015-1National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) 132554/2015-1National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) 309745/2015-2São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) 2010/12237-7São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) 2013/09596-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate organ doses in routine and low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) protocols using an experimental methodology. To compare experimental results with results obtained by the National Cancer Institute dosimetry system for CT (NCICT) organ dose calculator. To address the differences on organ dose measurements using tube current modulation (TCM) and fixed tube current protocols.

methodsAn experimental approach to evaluate organ doses in pediatric and adult anthropomorphic phantoms using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) was employed in this study. Several analyses were performed in order to establish the best way to achieve the main results in this investigation. The protocols used in this study were selected after an analysis of patient data collected from the Institute of Radiology of the School of Medicine of the University of São Paulo (InRad). The image quality was evaluated by a radiologist from this institution. Six chest adult protocols and four chest pediatric protocols were evaluated. Lung doses were evaluated for the adult phantom and lung and thyroid doses were evaluated for the pediatric phantom. The irradiations were performed using both a GE and a Philips CT scanner. Finally, organ doses measured with dosimeters were compared with Monte Carlo simulations performed with NCICT.

resultsAfter analyzing the data collected from all CT examinations performed during a period of 3 yr, the authors identified that adult and pediatric chest CT are among the most applied protocol in patients in that clinical institution, demonstrating the relevance on evaluating organ doses due to these examinations. With regards to the scan parameters adopted, the authors identified that using 80 kV instead of 120 kV for a pediatric chest routine CT, with TCM in both situations, can lead up to a 28.7% decrease on the absorbed dose. Moreover, in comparison to the standard adult protocol, which is performed with fixed mAs, TCM, and ultra low-dose protocols resulted in dose reductions of up to 35.0% and 90.0%, respectively. Finally, the percent differences found between experimental and Monte Carlo simulated organ doses were within a 20% interval.

conclusionsThe results obtained in this study measured the impact on the absorbed dose in routine chest CT by changing several scan parameters while the image quality could be potentially preserved.

Indexed as

Monte Carlo MethodPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosimetersTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedAdultChildHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedOrgans at RiskRadiography, ThoracicRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray Computedcomputed tomographydosimetry/exposure assessmentimage qualityMonte Carlo simulationsorgan dose

Identifiers

PMID30508315
PMCPMC6333138
OpenAlexW2903191707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.