Impact of computed tomography parameters on radiation dose in chest imaging: a comparative study between tomographs

Authors

  • Warley Ferreira Felix Federal University of Minas Gerais image/svg+xml https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5949-6299 (unauthenticated)
  • Profa. Dra. Adriana de Souza Medeiros Batista Departamento de Engenharia Nuclear -Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, CEP: 31.270-901 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil
  • Prof. Dr. Arno Heeren de Oliveira Departamento de Engenharia Nuclear - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, CEP: 31.270-901 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil
  • Prof. Dr. Marcos Eugênio Silva Abrantes Pontíficia Universiade Católica

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15392/2319-0612.2025.2859

Keywords:

Covid-19, Low Dose of Ionizing Radiation, Chest Computed Tomography, Diagnostic Reference Levels

Abstract

Due to the declaration of the Covid-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization in 2020, there was a significant increase in imaging exams to evaluate lung problems, these being the organs most affected by the disease. Given this demand, it is essential to understand how changes in the basic parameters of tomography exam protocols influence the doses of ionizing radiation received by patients. For this study, two test objects were used, one filled with water and the other with water containing areas of different densities. The study was carried out with a scan length of 70 mm each, to check variations in Hounsfield Units (HU) between exam protocols through statistical analyzes using the SPSS 21 software. For this purpose, scans were carried out on chest protocols routine on two computed tomography scanners from the same manufacturer, one with 4 rows and the other with 64, but with different tomographic image acquisition parameters. The scanning parameters used in the 64 rows tomograph were voltage of 120 kVp, modulated electric current, X-ray tube rotation time of 0.5 second, slice thickness of 2.0 mm, intervals between slices of 1.0 mm and spiral pitch of 0.828 and in the tomograph 4 rows, voltage 120 kVp, modulated electric current, X-ray tube rotation time of 0.75 seconds, slice thickness of 4.0 mm, interval between slices of 2.0 mm, spiral pitch of 1.0. The comparative results of the doses in the CT scanners showed that, in the 4 rows CT scanner, the total milliampere seconds (mAs) was 15.43% and the scanning time was 52.33% longer compared to the 64 rows CT scanner. However, the volume-weighted computed tomography dose index value (CTDIVOL), the dose-length product (DLP) and the effective dose (E) were, respectively, 34.74%, 49.46% and 50.46% lower in the 4 rows tomography scanner compared to the 64 rows tomography scanner, which leads us to identify which parameters of the tomographic examination contribute to this 50% reduction in the effective dose between the tomography scanners. The identification of these parameters in protocols will reference the development of protocols with low doses of ionizing radiation, which will allow the optimization of exposure of patients who require evolutionary monitoring of pathologies through tomographic images.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] J. Ford, Radiation, people and the environment. (2004). https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:35041876 acessado em 01/2022.

[2] UNSCEAR, Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2020/2021 Report: Report to the General Assembly, With Scientific Annexes A and B. UN (2022).

[3] P. P. Silva e A. L. Marcondes, Otimização da dose de radiação ionizante em tomografia computadorizada. Tekhne e Logos, Vol. 9, n. 1, pp. 88-98 (2018).

[4] S. Andresz, et al. Optimization of radiation protection: Alara, a practical guidebook (2019).

[5] J. Azadbakht, et al. A review on chest CT scanning parameters implemented in COVID-19 patients: bringing low-dose CT protocols into play. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 52, pp. 1-10 (2021).

[6] M. Tækker, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of low-dose and ultra-low-dose CT in detection of chest pathology: a systematic review. Clinical Imaging, Vol. 74, pp. 139-148 (2021).

[7] J. D. Harrison, et al. The use of dose quantities in radiological protection: ICRP publication 147 Annals of the ICRP 50 (1) 2021. Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol. 41, n. 2, p. 410 (2021).

[8] L. T. Dauer, et al. (Ed.). Dose, benefit, and risk in medical imaging. CRC Press (2018).

[9] S. K. Albahiti et al. Establishment of institutional diagnostic reference levels for 6 adult computed tomography examinations: Results from preliminary data collection. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 201, p. 110477 (2022)

[10] BRASIL. Instrução Normativa Nº 93 de 27 de maio de 2021. Estabelece os requisitos sanitários para a garantia da qualidade e da segurança em sistemas de tomografia computadorizada médica. (2021). https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/instrucao-normativa-in-n-93-de-27-de-maio-de-2021-323016253 acessado em 01/2022.

[11] J. D. Harrison. et al. ICRP publication 147: use of dose quantities in radiological protection. Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 50, n. 1, pp. 9-82 (2021).

[12] T. C. Alonso. Dosimetria em tomografia computadorizada e avaliação das doses nos órgãos em varreduras de tronco (2016)

[13] J. Hsieh, et al. Computed tomography: principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. In: Bellingham, Washington USA (Published by SPIE and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.): SPIE, (2022).

[14] A. P. Mourão. Tomografia computadorizada: tecnologias e aplicações. São Caetano do Sul, SP: Difusão, (2017).

[15] HOROS. Versão 3.3.6. Disponível em: https://horosproject.org/download

[16] VIEIRA, Sônia. Introdução à bioestatística. GEN Guanabara Koogan, 2021

[17] IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Downloads

Published

2025-07-09

How to Cite

Impact of computed tomography parameters on radiation dose in chest imaging: a comparative study between tomographs. Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, v. 13, n. 2A (Suppl.), p. e2859, 2025. DOI: 10.15392/2319-0612.2025.2859. Disponível em: https://bjrs.org.br/revista/index.php/REVISTA/article/view/2859. Acesso em: 16 jul. 2025.