Dosimetry and Adequacy of CT-based Attenuation Correction for Pediatric PET: Phantom Study

Published Online:Apr 1 2007https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2431060696

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the dose from the computed tomographic (CT) portion of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT to determine minimum CT acquisition parameters that provide adequate attenuation correction.

Materials and Methods: Measurements were made with a PET/CT scanner or a PET scanner, five anthropomorphic phantoms (newborn to medium adult), and an ionization chamber. The CT dose was evaluated for acquisition parameters (10, 20, 40, 80, 160 mA; 80, 100, 120, 140 kVp; 0.5 and 0.8 second per rotation; 1.5:1 pitch). Thermoluminescent dosimetry was used to evaluate the germanium 68/gallium 68 rod sources. A phantom study was performed to evaluate CT image noise and the adequacy of PET attenuation correction as a function of CT acquisition parameters and patient size.

Results: The volumetric anthropomorphic CT dose index varied by two orders of magnitude for each phantom over the range of acquisition parameters (0.30 and 21.0 mGy for a 10-year-old with 80 kVp, 10 mAs, and 0.8 second and with 140 kVp, 160 mAs, and 0.8 second, respectively). The volumetric anthropomorphic CT dose index for newborn phantoms was twice that for adult phantoms acquired similarly. The rod source dose was 0.03 mGy (3-minute scan). Although CT noise varied substantially among acquisition parameters, its contribution to PET noise was minimal and yielded only a 2% variation in PET noise. In a pediatric phantom, PET images generated by using CT performed with 80 kVp and 5 mAs for attenuation correction were visually indistinguishable from those generated by using CT performed with 140 kVp and 128 mAs. With very-low-dose CT (80 kVp, 5 mAs) for the adult phantom, undercorrection of the PET data resulted.

Conclusion: For pediatric patients, adequate attenuation correction can be obtained with very-low-dose CT (80 kVp, 5 mAs, 1.5:1 pitch), and such correction leads to a 100-fold dose reduction relative to diagnostic CT. For adults undergoing CT with 5 mAs and 1.5:1 pitch, the tube voltage needs to be increased to 120 kVp to prevent undercorrection.

References

1 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1369–1379.
Medline Google Scholar
2 Schöder H, Erdi YE, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT: a new imaging technology in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1419–1437.
Medline Google Scholar
3 Steinert HC, von Schulthess GK. Initial clinical experience using a new integrated in-line PET/CT system. Br J Radiol 2002;75(spec issue):S36–S38.
Medline Google Scholar
4 Wahl RL. Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45(suppl 1):82S–95S.
Medline Google Scholar
5 Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of (18)F-FDGPET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1797–1803.
Medline Google Scholar
6 Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected image. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1137–1143.
Medline Google Scholar
7 Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med 2003;33:166–179.
Medline Google Scholar
8 Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998;25:2046–2053.
Medline Google Scholar
9 Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, et al. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511 keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:922–927.
Medline Google Scholar
10 Lonn AHR. Evaluation of method to minimize the effect of x-ray contrast attenuation correction. In: 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium: conference record—19-25 October, 2003, Portland, Oregon, USA. Vol 3. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2004; 2220–2221.
Google Scholar
11 Hall E. Commentary on Roebuck DJ: “Risk and benefit in paediatric radiology”. Pediatr Radiol 1999;29:721–722.
Google Scholar
12 Huda W. Effective dose to adult and pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:272–279.
Medline Google Scholar
13 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. International Commission on Radiological Protection report 80. New York, NY: Pergamon, 1999; 49.
Google Scholar
14 Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the dose delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 1981;8:488–495.
Medline Google Scholar
15 National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Report NU2. Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1994.
Google Scholar
16 Wu TH, Huang YH, Lee JJ, et al. Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:38–43.
Medline Google Scholar
17 Kamel E, Hany TF, Burger C, et al. CT vs 68Ge attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT system: evaluation of the effect of lowering the CT tube current. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:346–350.
Medline Google Scholar
18 Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children's hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:303–306.
Medline Google Scholar
19 Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000;217:430–435.
Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007

Vol. 243, No. 1

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download