Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportTechnologist Student Abstract Track

Vendor reported CTDI vs. actual CTDI in SPECT/CT: Initial experience

Eric Watson, Crystal Botkin, William Hubble, Mark Schmidt, James Wadford and Medhat Osman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (supplement 1) 2725;
Eric Watson
1Doisy College, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Crystal Botkin
1Doisy College, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Hubble
1Doisy College, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Schmidt
2Philips Healthcare, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Wadford
3Radiation Protection Services, Springfield, IL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Medhat Osman
4Radiology, St. Louis University Hospital, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2725

Objectives The addition of anatomic imaging in general nuclear medicine, i.e. SPECT/CT, has increased concern for patient (pt) radiation dose (RD). In the near future, pt reports will be expected to include the total RD for these types of exams. RD from the SPECT component is directly calculated based on the mCi dose; while, the RD from the CT component is quite variable. Vendors report estimated RD from the CT component of each study by using the computed tomography dose index (CTDI). The purpose of this study was to compare the vendor reported CTDI to the actual CTDI calculated from phantom studies (PS).

Methods PS were performed on a Philips Brightview XCT using a CT body phantom, a dosimeter, and an ionization chamber probe to measure the RD from penetrating x-rays from the CT scan. Data was collected by placing the probe into one of the five holes drilled into the phantom, running the CT scanner according to the given Philips protocol, and recording the measured RD reading from the dosimeter. This was done for each hole. The data was analyzed by a radiation physicist, who then used a standard equation to calculate and report the CTDI.

Results Preliminary results show that the actual CTDI from the PS is slightly lower, within 20%, of the reported CTDI (6.5mGy). The accuracy of such numbers is somewhat limited. Some error in the results could be due to dosimeter errors and phantom set up. This is particularly true in the case of the Brightview XCT where the CT is a flat-detector CT which is different than the more common multi slice CT in most SPECT/CT systems.

Conclusions While the preliminary results show that the actual CTDI is very similar to the reported CTDI, further testing should be done to validate the accuracy of using the CT body phantom in evaluating RD from our Brightview XCT scanner. More importantly, further studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between CTDI in phantom studies and the actual RD to pts undergoing clinical studies

Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 53, Issue supplement 1
May 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Vendor reported CTDI vs. actual CTDI in SPECT/CT: Initial experience
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Vendor reported CTDI vs. actual CTDI in SPECT/CT: Initial experience
Eric Watson, Crystal Botkin, William Hubble, Mark Schmidt, James Wadford, Medhat Osman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (supplement 1) 2725;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Vendor reported CTDI vs. actual CTDI in SPECT/CT: Initial experience
Eric Watson, Crystal Botkin, William Hubble, Mark Schmidt, James Wadford, Medhat Osman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (supplement 1) 2725;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Technologist Student Abstract Track

  • Dietary protocols that maximize fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) efficiency to assess patients with suspected sarcoidosis.
  • The Effect of Incorrect HU on Standardized Uptake values
  • Critical deficiencies of radiopharmaceutical reconstitution and quality control instructions.
Show more Technologist Student Abstract Track

Technologist Student Scientific Papers II

  • The Future of Positron Emission Mammography (PEM)
  • The Effect of Incorrect HU on Standardized Uptake values
  • Coronary Flow Reserve: A Non-Invasive Calculation of Blood Flow to Obtain Information on Myocardial Function
Show more Technologist Student Scientific Papers II

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire