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。

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过水当量直径(Dw)和有效直径(Deff)两种方法,评估接受肾脏、输尿管和膀胱(CT KUB)扫描的成年患者的尺寸特异性剂量估计(SSDE)。该研究还旨在评估使用单个中心图像切片进行SSDE估计的准确性。方法:从当地一家医院收集患者数据时获得了伦理许可。检索203例成年患者的CT图像,使用IndoseCT软件进行处理,计算患者的尺寸指标和相应的SSDE值。结果:使用Dw、mean和Deff、mean计算的SSDE值具有可比性:分别为10.3±2.9 mGy和10.2±2.9 mGy。当使用单个中心切片时,Dw的平均百分比差异为-1.8±3.9%,Deff的平均百分比差异为-1.1±4.6%,所有值均在±11%以内。在单层和全层测量得到的SSDE值之间观察到很强的相关性(R2 > 0.97),显示Dw的一致性稍好。结论:虽然Dw提供了更准确的患者大小估计,但观察到的最小差异表明,当Dw特定工具不可用时,Deff是一个合适的选择。此外,使用单个中心切片是一种实用而有效的方法来估计SSDE,大大减少了计算需求。知识进展:本研究提供了临床验证,在CT KUB检查中使用单层方法可以可靠地估计SSDE,大大减少了处理时间。它还表明,在高级成像分析工具有限的情况下,Deff是Dw的可行替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Radiology
British Journal of Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
330
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信