Khaled Alenazi, Abdullah Abuhaimed, Ali Alanazi, Sultan Alshehri, Ahmad Abanomy, Haitham Alahmad
{"title":"评估CT KUB扫描的尺寸特异性剂量:使用水当量和有效直径的中央切片和全切片方法的比较。","authors":"Khaled Alenazi, Abdullah Abuhaimed, Ali Alanazi, Sultan Alshehri, Ahmad Abanomy, Haitham Alahmad","doi":"10.1093/bjr/tqaf218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in adult patients undergoing kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT KUB) scans using two approaches: water-equivalent diameter (Dw) and effective diameter (Deff). The study also aimed to assess the accuracy of using a single central image slice for SSDE estimation.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Ethical approval was obtained to collect patient data from a local hospital. CT images from 203 adult patients were retrieved and processed using IndoseCT software to calculate patient size metrics and corresponding SSDE values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SSDE values calculated using the Dw,mean and Deff,mean were comparable: 10.3 ± 2.9 mGy and 10.2 ± 2.9 mGy, respectively. When using a single central slice, the mean percentage differences were -1.8 ± 3.9% for Dw and -1.1 ± 4.6% for Deff, with all values falling within ±11%. A strong correlation was observed between SSDE values derived from single-slice and full-slice measurements (R2 > 0.97), showing slightly better agreement for Dw.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While Dw offers a more accurate estimation of patient size, the minimal differences observed suggest that Deff is a suitable alternative when Dw specific tools are unavailable. Additionally, using a single central slice is a practical and efficient method to estimate SSDE, significantly reducing computational demands.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>This study provides clinical validation that SSDE can be reliably estimated using a single-slice method in CT KUB examinations, offering a substantial reduction in processing time. It also demonstrates that Deff is a viable substitute for Dw when access to advanced imaging analysis tools is limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":9306,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Size-Specific Dose Estimates in CT KUB Scans: Comparison of Central-Slice and Full-Slices Methods Using Water-Equivalent and Effective Diameters.\",\"authors\":\"Khaled Alenazi, Abdullah Abuhaimed, Ali Alanazi, Sultan Alshehri, Ahmad Abanomy, Haitham Alahmad\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bjr/tqaf218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in adult patients undergoing kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT KUB) scans using two approaches: water-equivalent diameter (Dw) and effective diameter (Deff). The study also aimed to assess the accuracy of using a single central image slice for SSDE estimation.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Ethical approval was obtained to collect patient data from a local hospital. CT images from 203 adult patients were retrieved and processed using IndoseCT software to calculate patient size metrics and corresponding SSDE values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SSDE values calculated using the Dw,mean and Deff,mean were comparable: 10.3 ± 2.9 mGy and 10.2 ± 2.9 mGy, respectively. When using a single central slice, the mean percentage differences were -1.8 ± 3.9% for Dw and -1.1 ± 4.6% for Deff, with all values falling within ±11%. A strong correlation was observed between SSDE values derived from single-slice and full-slice measurements (R2 > 0.97), showing slightly better agreement for Dw.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While Dw offers a more accurate estimation of patient size, the minimal differences observed suggest that Deff is a suitable alternative when Dw specific tools are unavailable. Additionally, using a single central slice is a practical and efficient method to estimate SSDE, significantly reducing computational demands.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>This study provides clinical validation that SSDE can be reliably estimated using a single-slice method in CT KUB examinations, offering a substantial reduction in processing time. It also demonstrates that Deff is a viable substitute for Dw when access to advanced imaging analysis tools is limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqaf218\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqaf218","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of Size-Specific Dose Estimates in CT KUB Scans: Comparison of Central-Slice and Full-Slices Methods Using Water-Equivalent and Effective Diameters.
Objectives: To evaluate the Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in adult patients undergoing kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT KUB) scans using two approaches: water-equivalent diameter (Dw) and effective diameter (Deff). The study also aimed to assess the accuracy of using a single central image slice for SSDE estimation.
Methodology: Ethical approval was obtained to collect patient data from a local hospital. CT images from 203 adult patients were retrieved and processed using IndoseCT software to calculate patient size metrics and corresponding SSDE values.
Results: SSDE values calculated using the Dw,mean and Deff,mean were comparable: 10.3 ± 2.9 mGy and 10.2 ± 2.9 mGy, respectively. When using a single central slice, the mean percentage differences were -1.8 ± 3.9% for Dw and -1.1 ± 4.6% for Deff, with all values falling within ±11%. A strong correlation was observed between SSDE values derived from single-slice and full-slice measurements (R2 > 0.97), showing slightly better agreement for Dw.
Conclusion: While Dw offers a more accurate estimation of patient size, the minimal differences observed suggest that Deff is a suitable alternative when Dw specific tools are unavailable. Additionally, using a single central slice is a practical and efficient method to estimate SSDE, significantly reducing computational demands.
Advances in knowledge: This study provides clinical validation that SSDE can be reliably estimated using a single-slice method in CT KUB examinations, offering a substantial reduction in processing time. It also demonstrates that Deff is a viable substitute for Dw when access to advanced imaging analysis tools is limited.
期刊介绍:
BJR is the international research journal of the British Institute of Radiology and is the oldest scientific journal in the field of radiology and related sciences.
Dating back to 1896, BJR’s history is radiology’s history, and the journal has featured some landmark papers such as the first description of Computed Tomography "Computerized transverse axial tomography" by Godfrey Hounsfield in 1973. A valuable historical resource, the complete BJR archive has been digitized from 1896.
Quick Facts:
- 2015 Impact Factor – 1.840
- Receipt to first decision – average of 6 weeks
- Acceptance to online publication – average of 3 weeks
- ISSN: 0007-1285
- eISSN: 1748-880X
Open Access option