SECONDARY CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT OF PELVIC CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IMAGING PROTOCOLS

Authors

  • Sundus OSMAN Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania
  • Reda VENSKAUSKAITĖ Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania
  • Reda ČERAPAITĖ-TRUŠINSKIENE Lithuanian University of Health Science, Kaunas, Lithuania https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6451-3356
  • Jurgita LAURIKAITIENE 1. Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania. 2. Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics, Kaunas, Lithuania https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4485-381X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17721/3041-1491/2024.11-44

Keywords:

low doses, risk assessment, linear accelerator, anthropomorphic phantom

Abstract

Introduction. This study evaluates the secondary cancer risks associated with low-dose ionizing radiation from pelvic cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging protocols in the context of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT).

Methods. The research identifies that effective dose varies significantly with protocol choice and field size; larger fields result in higher doses, emphasizing the need for optimization to balance diagnostic accuracy with safety.

ResultsProtocols such as Pelvis Fast, characterized by reduced default mAs and shorter scan times, demonstrate substantially lower effective doses compared to alternatives like Pelvis Large, translating to a decreased excess absolute risk (EAR) for secondary cancer development. Utilizing the BEIR VII model for risk assessment, the study underscores the importance of selecting imaging protocols with lower EAR values to mitigate secondary cancer risks effectively.

Conclutions. These findings highlight the critical role of protocol selection in reducing radiation exposure while maintaining high image quality, providing valuable guidance for enhancing patient safety in medical imaging practices.

 

References

Altergot, A., Schürmann, M., Jungert, T., Auerbach, H., Nüsken, F., Palm, J., Rübe, C., Rübe, C. E., & Dzierma, Y. (2023). Imaging doses for different CBCT protocols on the Halcyon 3.0 linear accelerator – TLD measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom. Z. Med. Phys., 34(4), 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.03.002

 

Buxi, T.B.S., Yadav, A., Rawat, K.S., & Ghuman, S.S. (2014). Effect of iterative reconstructions in low dose computed tomography. Journal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing, 4(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5430/jbgc.v4n3p1

 

Iliopoulos, P., Simopoulou, F., Simopoulos, V., Kyrgias, G., & Theodorou, K. (2023). Review on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) dose in patients undergoing image guided radiotherapy (IGRT). In O.A. Osibote & E. Eppard (Eds.), Advances in Dosimetry and New Trends in Radiopharmaceuticals. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002683

 

Khan, M., Sandhu, N., Naeem, M., Ealden, R., Pearson, M., Ali, A., Honey, I., Webster, A., Eaton, D., & Ntentas, G. (2022). Implementation of a comprehensive set of optimised CBCT protocols and validation through imaging quality and dose audit. British Journal of Radiology, 95(1139), 20220070. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20220070

 

Lau, Y.S., Chew, M.T., Alqahtani, A., Jones, B., Hill, M.A., Nisbet, A., & Bradley, D.A. (2021). Low dose ionising radiation-induced hormesis: Therapeutic implications to human health. Applied Sciences, 11(19), 8909. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11198909

 

Simonetto, C., Wollschläger, D., Kundrát, P., Ulanowski, A., Becker, J., Castelletti, N., Güthlin, D., Shemiakina, E., & Eidemüller, M. (2021). Estimating long-term health risks after breast cancer radiotherapy: Merging evidence from low and high doses. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 60(3), 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-021-00924-8

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Downloads

Published

2025-01-26

How to Cite

OSMAN, S., VENSKAUSKAITĖ, R. ., ČERAPAITĖ-TRUŠINSKIENE, R., & LAURIKAITIENE, J. (2025). SECONDARY CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT OF PELVIC CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IMAGING PROTOCOLS. The Conference Proceedings “Medical Physics – the Current Status, Problems, the Way of Development. Innovation technologies”, 1(1), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.17721/3041-1491/2024.11-44