Influence of Off-Centre Positioning, Scan Direction, and Localiser Projection Angle on Organ-Specific Radiation Doses in Low-Dose Chest CT: A Simulation Study Across Four Scanner Models.

With the considerable number of low-dose CT examinations performed in lung cancer screening, variations in participant positioning, scan direction, or localiser angle are likely to occur in practice. These variations are known to affect automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) operation, yet organ-specific dose implications across CT models remain unknown. Therefore, this simulation study systematically characterised the effect of the aforementioned variations. Using the Alderson RANDO phantom, ATCM profiles were established on CT scanners from four major vendors (GE, Siemens, Canon, Philips) after introducing vertical and lateral mispositioning, craniocaudal and caudocranial scan directions, and varying localiser projection angles. Additionally, off-centre positioning and scan direction changes preceded by either a single posteroanterior (PA) or dual (PA+lateral) localiser were evaluated. Doses to the lungs, heart, thyroid, liver, and breasts were calculated from Monte Carlo simulations of each setup for 32 patient-specific voxel models. The results demonstrate statistically significant and scanner-dependent dose variations. PA localisers generally produced the highest organ doses. However, on the Philips system, organ dose increases of at least 50% were observed after the lateral projection angle. GE and Siemens scanners showed pronounced dose increases following downward mispositioning with a single PA localiser (18-50% and 5-25%, respectively), an effect largely mitigated by adding a lateral localiser. Canon and Philips scanners exhibited generally stable ATCM behaviour after vertical off-centring, although Canon showed notable dose increases upon lateral mispositioning, with dose increases up to 37.5% and 34% after a single PA or dual localiser, respectively. Variations in scan direction displayed highly model- and organ-dependent effects. Dose deviations were largely mitigated after dual localisers for the GE, Canon, and Philips scanner types. Here, organ dose differences were within an absolute range of 10%, indicating that a change in scan direction preceded by a dual localiser can reduce extreme dose deviations. Remarkably, no significant difference was observed solely for the Siemens scanner when combined with a dual localiser, as lung, heart, breast, and liver doses remained significantly (between 20 and 35%) lower when scanning craniocaudally, whereas the thyroid dose in this setup remained considerably higher (up to 20% mean increase). Ultimately, findings indicate that seemingly minor protocol deviations can lead to significant underestimation of anticipated organ-specific doses associated with lung cancer screening. Scanner-specific optimisation, supported by medical physics expertise, is therefore essential.