Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31539892›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2019

A real-time Monte Carlo tool for individualized dose estimations in clinical CT.

Shobhit Sharma, Anuj Kapadia, Wanyi Fu, Ehsan Abadi, W Paul Segars, Ehsan Samei

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Monte Carlo methods for medical imaging research.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020
    Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shobhit SharmaDepartment of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States of America.
Anuj KapadiaDepartment of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States of America.
Wanyi FuCarl E Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States of America.
Ehsan AbadiCarl E Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9123-5854
W Paul SegarsCarl E Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States of America.
Ehsan SameiDepartment of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States of America.
Duke University · US

Funding

Simulation Tools for Dynamic CTR01EB001838 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SAMEI, EHSAN, SEGARS, WILLIAM P · 2005 to 2023
$6.9M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB001838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing awareness of the adverse effects associated with radiation exposure in computed tomography (CT) has necessesitated the quantification of dose delivered to patients for better risk assessment in the clinic. The current methods for dose quantification used in the clinic are approximations, lacking realistic models for the irradiation conditions utilized in the scan and the anatomy of the patient being imaged, which limits their relevance for a particular patient. The established gold-standard technique for individualized dose quantification uses Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to obtain patient-specific estimates of organ dose in anatomically realistic computational phantoms to provide patient-specific estimates of organ dose. Although accurate, MC simulations are computationally expensive, which limits their utility for time-constrained applications in the clinic. To overcome these shortcomings, a real-time GPU-based MC tool based on FDA's MC-GPU framework was developed for patient and scanner-specific dosimetry in the clinic. The tool was validated against (1) AAPM's TG-195 reference datasets and (2) physical measurements of dose acquired using TLD chips in adult and pediatric anthropomorphic phantoms. To demonstrate its utility towards providing individualized dose estimates, it was integrated with an automatic segmentation method for generating patient-specific models, which were then used to estimate patient- and scanner-specific organ doses for a select population of 50 adult patients using a clinically relevant CT protocol. The organ dose estimates were compared to corresponding dose estimates from a previously validated MC method based on Penelope. The dose estimates from our MC tool agreed within 5% for all organs (except thyroid) tabulated by TG-195 and within 10% for all TLD locations in the adult and pediactric phantoms, across all validation cases. Compared against Penelope, the organ dose estimates agreed within 3% on average for all organs in the patient population study. The average run duration for each patient was estimated at 23.79 s, representing a significant speedup (~700×) over existing non-parallelized MC methods. The accuracy of dose estimates combined with a significant improvement in execution times suggests a feasible solution utilizing the proposed MC tool for real-time individualized dosimetry in the clinic.

Indexed as

Monte Carlo MethodRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultChildHumansMalePhantoms, ImagingRadiation ExposureRadiometryTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31539892
PMCPMC7050822
OpenAlexW2973995256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.