Size-specific dose estimates: Localizer or transverse abdominal computed tomography images?
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026

Computed Tomography-guided Time-domain Diffuse Fluorescence Tomography in Small Animals for Localization of Cancer Biomarkers
Published on: July 17, 2012
Sarvenaz Pourjabbar1, Sarabjeet Singh1, Atul Padole1
1Sarvenaz Pourjabbar, Sarabjeet Singh, Atul Padole, Akshay Saini, Michael A Blake, Mannudeep K Kalra, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Aim:
To investigate effect of body dimensions obtained from localizer radiograph and transverse abdominal computed tomography (CT) images on Size Specific Dose Estimate.
Methods:
This study was approved by Institutional Review Board and was compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Fifty patients with abdominal CT examinations (58 ± 13 years, Male:Female 28:22) were included in this study. Anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral (Lat) diameters were measured at 5 cm intervals from the CT exam localizer radiograph (simple X-ray image acquired for planning the CT exam before starting the scan) and transverse CT images. Average of measured AP and Lat diameters, as well as maximum, minimum and mid location AP and Lat were measured on both image sets. In addition, off centering of patients from the gantry iso-center was calculated from the localizers. Conversion factors from American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) report 204 were obtained for AP, Lat, AP + Lat, and effective diameter (√ AP * Lat) to determine size specific dose estimate (SSDE) from the CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) recorded from the dose reports. Data were analyzed using SPSS v19.
Results:
Total number of 5376 measurements was done. In some patients entire body circumference was not covered on either projection radiograph or transverse CT images; hence accurate measurement of AP and Lat diameters was not possible in 11% (278/2488) of locations. Forty one patients were off-centered with mean of 1.9 ± 1.8 cm (range: 0.4-7 cm). Conversion factors for attained diameters were not listed on AAPM look-up tables in 3% (80/2488) of measurements. SSDE values were significantly different compared to CTDIvol, ranging from 32% lower to 74% greater than CTDIvol.
Conclusion:
There is underestimation and overestimation of dose comparing SSDE values to CTDIvol. Localizer radiographs are associated with overestimation of patient size and therefore underestimation of SSDE.
More Related Videos
09:00Spatial Measurements of Perfusion, Interstitial Fluid Pressure and Liposomes Accumulation in Solid Tumors
Published on: August 18, 2016
09:49A Whole Body Dosimetry Protocol for Peptide-Receptor Radionuclide Therapy PRRT: 2D Planar Image and Hybrid 2D+3D SPECT/CT Image Methods
Published on: April 24, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Computed Tomography
The technique was invented in the 1970s and is based on the principle that as X-rays pass through the body, they are absorbed or reflected at different levels. In the technique, a patient lies on a motorized platform while a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scanner rotates...
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography
Imaging Studies II: Positron Emission Tomography and Scintigraphy
Fundamental Principles of PET