The effect of contrast agent on delivered dose during diagnostic imaging of thoracic region

Authors

10.22052/8.1.1

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of contrast material on the estimation of absorbed dose due to computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) using the ICRP reference phantoms. To address this issue, we modified the previously developed physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to be conformed to the ICRP reference phantoms. Regarding the standard contrast material injection protocol, we then provided an in-house Maple code to solve the modified PBPK models and obtain the iodine concentration curves for adult male (AM) and adult female (AF) phantoms. The material composition of the phantoms was then adjusted to include the determined iodine mass percentages in different organs and tissues. The dosimetry calculations were performed using Monte Carlo N-Particle extended code (MCNPX) version 2.6.0., and the estimation of absorbed dose was done at 20, 25 and 30 seconds after the injection. The results showed dose increment of 38%-44% in the lungs at 25 s after the injection in comparison with the time before injection, which emphasizes the importance of considering contrast material in the dose estimation. It is known that the image quality of contrast-enhanced CT is related to the amount of iodine concentration in pulmonary vessels. Our calculations showed that the best time for imaging is 25 s after injection (5 s after the end of injection). At this time, the lung absorbed dose is maximized and the absorbed dose to other organs in the scanned region are minimized.

Keywords

References

[1] K.T. Horlander, D.M. Mannino and K.V. Leeper. Pulmonary embolism mortality in the United States, 1979-1998: an analysis using multiple-cause mortality data, Archives of internal medicine, 163(14) (2003) 1711–1717. [2] S. Konstantinides, A. Torbicki, G. Agnelli, N. Danchin, D. Fitzmaurice, N. Galiè, J.S.R. Gibbs, M. Huisman, N. Kucher, l. Lang and M. Lankeit. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism, Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 68(1) (2015) 64. [3] Pioped Investigators. Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. Results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED), Jama, 263(20) (1990) 2753. [4] J.J. Phillips, J. Straiton and R.T. Staff. Planar and SPECT ventilation/perfusion imaging and computed tomography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost and dose comparison, European journal of radiology, 84(7) (2015) 1392–1400. [5] A.K. Venkatesh, L. Agha, J. Abaluck, C. Rothenberg, C. Kabrhel and A.S. Raja. Trends and variation in the utilization and diagnostic yield of chest imaging for Medicare patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department, American Journal of Roentgenology, 210(3) (2018) 572–577. [6] National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2, National Academies Press, 2 (2006). [7] L. Rafat-Motavalli, E. Hoseinian-Azghadi, H. Miri-Hakimabad and P. Akhlaghi. Pulmonary Embolism in Pregnant Patients: Assessing organ dose to pregnant phantom and its fetus during lung imaging, Medical Physics. 44(11) (2017) 6038–6046. [8] P. Sahbaee, W.P. Segars, D. Marin, R.C. Nelson and E. Samei. The effect of contrast material on radiation dose at CT: Part1. Incorporation of contrast material dynamics in anthropomorphic phantoms, Radiology, 283(3) (2017) 739–748. [9] K.T. Bae, J.R. Heiken and J.A. Brink. Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part I. Prediction with a computer model, Radiology, 207(3) (1998) 647–655. [10] K.T. Bae. Intravenous Contrast Medium Administration and Scan Timing at CT: Considerations and Approaches, Radiology, 256(1) (2010) 32–61. [11] K.T. Bae, J.R. Heiken and J.A. Brink. Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part II. Effect of reduced cardiac output in a porcine model, Radiology, 207(3) (1998) 657–662. [12] A. Khursheed, M.C. Hiller, P.C. Shrimpton and B.F. Wall. Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations, The British Journal of Radiology, 75(895) (2002) 819–830. [13] P. Akhlaghi, H. Miri-Hakimabad and L. Rafat-Motavalli. Dose estimation in reference and non-reference pediatric patients undergoing computed tomography examinations: a Monte Carlo study, Radioprotection, 50(1) (2015) 43–54. [14] M. Andersson, L. Johansson, K. Eckerman and S. Mattsson. IDAC-Dose 2.1, an internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the ICRP adult reference voxel phantoms, EJNMMI research, 7(1) (2017) 88.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics