Paper detail

Pitfalls in interventional X-ray organ dose assessment -- combined experimental and computational phantom study: application to prostatic artery embolization

With X-ray radiation protection and dose management constantly gaining interest in interventional radiology, novel procedures often undergo prospective dose studies using anthropomorphic phantoms to determine expected dose values. Due to inherent uncertainties, these dose values might not allow for patient-specific risk assessment. Therefore, first the aim of this study is to quantify the influence of these parameters on local X-ray dose to evaluate their relevance in the assessment of patient-specific organ doses. Second, this knowledge further enables validating a simulation approach, which allows employing physiological material models and patient-specific geometries. Phantom dosimetry experiments using MOSFET dosimeters were conducted reproducing imaging scenarios in prostatic arterial embolization (PAE). Associated organ-equivalent dose of prostate, bladder, colon and skin was determined. Dose deviation induced by possible small displacements of the patient was reproduced by moving the X-ray source. Dose deviation induced by material differences was investigated by analyzing two different commonly used phantoms. We reconstructed the experiments using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, a reference male geometry, and different material properties. Overall, MC simulated organ dose values are in accordance with the measured ones for the majority of cases. Marginal displacements of X-ray source relative to the phantoms lead to deviations of 6% to 135% in organ dose values, while skin dose remains relatively constant. Regarding the impact of phantom material composition, underestimation of internal organ dose values by 12% to 20% is prevalent in all simulated phantoms. Skin dose, however, can be estimated with low deviation of 1% to 8% at least for two materials. Prospective reference dose studies might not extend to precise patient-specific dose assessment.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.