Simultaneous Comparison of Image Quality and Radiation-Induced Cancer Risk in Brain CT Scans among Different Scanners

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

1 MSc Student of Medical Imaging, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 MSc of Medical Imaging, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

10.48305/jims.v41.i750.1170

Abstract

Background: The parameters of image quality depend on the radiation dose and the CT scanner type. This study aimed to simultaneously compare the image quality and the risk of carcinogenesis caused by radiation in the CT scan of the brain in different scanners.
Methods: The present descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted on 200 patients who had been referred to hospitals of Isfahan city including Kashani (Siemens (scanner 1) and Canon (scanner 2)), Al-Zahra (General Electric (scanner 3)), Isa bin Maryam (Neusoft (Scanner 4)) for brain CT scan. Organ doses and effective doses of patients were obtained with a calculating program, Impact dose, and risk of exposure-induced death (REID) values estimated by the PCXMC program. The image quality was evaluated by examining the parameters of image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). To compare different scanners, the CNR to REID ratio was introduced as the C criterion.
Findings: The average values of REID for scanners 1 to 4 were obtained at 2.98, 4.46, 5.07, and 4.65 per 100,000 men and 3.22, 6.16, 6.53, and 6.26 per 100,000 women, respectively. The average CNR values for scanners 1 to 4 were 1.24, 1.05, 1.66 and 2.08, respectively. Scanners 1 and 2 had the highest and lowest C criteria, respectively.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the radiation dose and the risk caused by radiation in the brain CT scan test should always be evaluated considering the image quality parameters, and a scanner with a higher CNR to REID ratio is more suitable.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Balonov M, Shrimpton P. Effective dose and risks from medical x-ray procedures. Ann ICRP 2012; 41(3-4): 129-41.
  2. Martin CJ. Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 2007; 80(956): 639-47.
  3. McCollough CH, Christner JA, Kofler JM. How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194(4): 890-6.
  4. Kiani M, Chaparian A. Evaluation of image quality, organ doses, effective dose, and cancer risk from pediatric brain CT scans. Eur J Radiol 2023; 158: 110657.
  5. Masjedi H, Omidi R, Zamani H, Perota G, Zare MH. Radiation dose and risk of exposure-induced death associated with common computed tomography procedures in Yazd Province. Eur J Radiol 2020; 126: 108932.
  6. Mahmoudi G, Bahrami A, Rostampour N, Maskani R, Joukar F, Hosseinzadeh A. Evaluation of cancer risk induced by radiation exposure from normal head CT scans. Front Biomed Technol 2023; 10(3): 259-67.
  7. Barca P, Paolicchi F, Aringhieri G, Palmas F, Marfisi D, Fantacci ME, et al. A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre-A phantom study. PLoS One 2021; 16(1): e0245374.
  8. Streffer C, International Commission on Radiation Protection. The ICRP 2007 recommendations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2007; 127(1-4): 2-7.
  9. Chen W, Kolditz D, Beister M, Bohle R, Kalender WA. Fast on‐site Monte Carlo tool for dose calculations in CT applications. Med Phys 2012; 39(6Part1): 2985-96.
  10. Deak P, Van Straten M, Shrimpton PC, Zankl M, Kalender WA. Validation of a Monte Carlo tool for patient-specific dose simulations in multi-slice computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2008; 18(4): 759-72.
  11. National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
  12. Tapiovaara M, Siiskonen T. PCXMC, A Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations. Helsinki, Finland: STUK; 2008.
  13. Chaparian A, Shoushtarian J, Sadeghi Z, Soosani S, Sabagh M, Askarieh E. Evaluating the justification of computed tomography (CT) scan requests to reduce the risk of radiation-induced cancers [in Persian]. J Isfahan Med Sch 2018; 36(477): 433-8.
  14. Curran TI, Maher M, McLaughlin P, Coffey F, O’Neill S. Analysis of effective dose at computed tomography in a modern 64 slice multidetector CT system in an Irish Tertiary Care Centre with local and international reference standards. medRxiv 2020: 2020-04.
  15. Moradi H, Chehre H, Ghaderi B, Saghatchi F, Najafi M, Karami P, et al. Evaluating the necessity and radiation risk of brain CT scans requested by the trauma emergency department. J Biomed Phys Eng 2023; 13(6): 515-22.
  16. Khoramian D, Sistani S, Abedi Firouzjah R. Assessment and comparison of radiation dose and image quality in multi-detector CT scanners in non-contrast head and neck examinations. Pol J Radiol 2019; 84: e61-7.
  17. Mahmoodi M, Chaparian A. Organ doses, effective dose, and cancer risk from coronary CT angiography examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214(5): 1131-6.
  18. Choopani MR, Chaparian A. Introduction of a new parameter for evaluation of digital radiography system performance. J Med Signals Sens 2020; 10(3): 196-200.

 

Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 41, Issue 750
2nd Week, March
March and April 2024
Pages 1170-1176

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 February 2024
  • Accept Date: 16 March 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics