Patient-Informed Organ Dose Estimation in Clinical CT: Implementation and Effective Dose Assessment in 1048 Clinical...

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to comprehensively implement a patient-informed organ dose monitoring framework for clinical CT and compare the effective dose (ED) according to the patient-informed organ dose with ED according to the dose-length product (DLP) in 1048 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Organ doses for a given examination are computed by matching the topogram to a computational phantom from a library of anthropomorphic phantoms and scaling the fixed tube current dose coefficients by the examination volume CT dose index (CTDI_vol) and the tube-current modulation using a previously validated convolution-based technique. In this study, the library was expanded to 58 adult, 56 pediatric, five pregnant, and 12 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) reference models, and the technique was extended to include multiple protocols, a bias correction, and uncertainty estimates. The method was implemented in a clinical monitoring system to estimate organ dose and organ dose-based ED for 647 abdomen-pelvis and 401 chest examinations, which were compared with DLP-based ED using a t test. RESULTS. For the majority of the organs, the maximum errors in organ dose estimation were 18% and 8%, averaged across all protocols, without and with bias correction, respectively. For the patient examinations, DLP-based ED was significantly different from organ dose-based ED by as much as 190.9% and 234.7% for chest and abdomen-pelvis scans, respectively (mean, 9.0% and 24.3%). The differences were statistically significant (p < .001) and exhibited overestimation for larger-sized patients and underestimation for smaller-sized patients. CONCLUSION. A patient-informed organ dose estimation framework was comprehensively implemented applicable to clinical imaging of adult, pediatric, and pregnant patients. Compared with organ dose-based ED, DLP-based ED may overestimate effective dose for larger-sized patients and underestimate it for smaller-sized patients.