Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimation of cancer risks due to chest radiotherapy treatment planning computed tomography (CT) simulations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of our study was to determine organ doses to estimate the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence related to chest tomography simulations for Radiotherapy Treatment Planning (RTTP) using patient-specific information. Patient data were used to calculate organ doses and effective dose. The effective dose (E) was calculated by two methods. First, to calculate effective dose in a standard phantom, the collected dosimetric parameters were used with the ImPACT CT Patient Dosimetry Calculator and E was calculated by applying related correction factors. Second, using the scanner-derived Dose Length Product, LARs were computed using the US National Academy of Sciences (BEIR VII) model for age- and sex-specific risks at each exposure. DLP, CTDIvol, and scan length were 507 ± 143 mGy.cm, 11 ± 4 mGy, and 47 ± 7 cm, respectively. The effective dose was 10 ± 3 mSv using ImPACT patient dosimetry calculator software and 9 ± 2 mSv using the scanner-derived Dose Length Product. The LAR of cancer incidence for all cancers, all solid cancers and leukemia were 65 ± 29, 62 ± 27, 7 ± 2 cases per 100,000 individuals, respectively. Radiation exposure from the usage of CT for radiotherapy treatment planning (RTTP) causes non-negligible increases in lifetime attributable risk. The results of this study can be used as a guide by physicians to implement strategies based on the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle that lead to a reduction dose without sacrificing diagnostic information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmad SS, Duke S, Jena R, Williams MV, Burnet NG (2012) Advances in radiotherapy. BMJ 345:e7765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert JM (2013) Radiation risk from CT: implications for cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(1):W81–W87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkhorayef M (2018) Radiation risk from chest, abdomen and pelvis computed tomography investigations. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 318(1):661–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asadinezhad M, Bahreyni Toossi MT, Nouri M (2019) Diagnostic reference levels for computed tomography examinations in Iran: a nationwide radiation dose survey. Iranian J Med Phys 16(1):19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagherzadeh S, Jabbari N, Khalkhali HR (2018) Estimation of lifetime attributable risks (LARs) of cancer associated with abdominopelvic radiotherapy treatment planning computed tomography (CT) simulations. Int J Radiat Biol 94(5):454–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagherzadeh S, Jabbari N, Khalkhali HR (2021) Radiation dose and cancer risks from radiation exposure during abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scans: comparison of diagnostic and radiotherapy treatment planning CT scans. Radiat Environ Biophys 60(4):579–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayman E, Prestwich RJ, Speight R, Aspin L, Garratt L, Wilson S, Dyker KE, Sen M (2014) Patterns of failure after intensity-modulated radiotherapyin head and neck squamous cell carcinoma using compartmental clin-ical target volume delineation. Clin Oncol (r Coll Radiol) 26:636–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzierma Y, Minko P, Ziegenhain F, Bell K, Buecker A, Rübe C, Jagoda P (2017) Abdominal imaging dose in radiology and radiotherapy—phantom point dose measurements, effective dose and secondary cancer risk. Phys Med 43:49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein AJ, Sanz J, Dellegrottaglie S, Milite M, Sirol M, Henzlova M, Rajagopalan S (2008) Radiation dose and cancer risk estimates in 16-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol 15(2):232–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faletra FF, D’Angeli I, Klersy C, Averaimo M, Klimusina J, Pasotti E, Pedrazzini GB, Curti M, Carraro C, Diliberto R, Moccetti T, Auricchio A (2010) Estimates of lifetime attributable risk of cancer after a single radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomographic coronary angiography. Heart 96(12):927–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghetti C, Ortenzia O, Maddalo M, Altabella L, Sverzellati N (2020) Dosimetric and radiation cancer risk evaluation of high resolution thorax CT during COVID-19 outbreak. Phys Med 80:119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang R, Liu X, He L, Zhou PK (2020) Radiation exposure associated with computed tomography in childhood and the subsequent risk of cancer: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. Dose Response 18(2):1559325820923828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huda W, Mettler FA (2011) Volume CT dose index and dose-length product displayed during CT: what good are they? Radiology 258:236–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huda W, Schoepf UJ, Abro JA, Mah E, Costello P (2011) Radiation-related cancer risks in a clinical patient population undergoing cardiac CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):W159–W165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 87) (2000) Managing patient dose in computed tomography. Ann ICRP 30(4):7–45

    Google Scholar 

  • International Commission on Radiological Protection 2007 The Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007:37(2–4):1–332.

  • Jessen KA, Panzer W, Shrimpton PC, Tosi G, Geleijns J (2000) EUR 16262: European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Journy N, Ancelet S, Rehel JL, Mezzarobba M, Aubert B, Laurier D, Bernier MO (2014) Predicted cancer risks induced by computed tomography examinations during childhood, by a quantitative risk assessment approach. Radiat Environ Biophys 53(1):39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalra MK, Maher MM, Rizzo S, Kanarek D, Shepard JA (2004) Radiation exposure from chest CT: issues and strategies. J Korean Med Sci 19(2):159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Yoshizumi TT, Frush DP, Toncheva G, Yin FF (2010) Radiation dose from cone beam CT in a pediatric phantom: risk estimation of cancer incidence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(1):186–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kritsaneepaiboon S, Jutiyon A, Krisanachinda A (2018) Cumulative radiation exposure and estimated lifetime cancer risk in multiple-injury adult patients undergoing repeated or multiple CTs. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 44(1):19–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubo T, Lin PJ, Stiller W, Takahashi M, Kauczor HU, Ohno Y, Hatabu H (2008) Radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(2):335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahham A, Masri HAL, Kameel S (2018) Estimation of female radiation doses and breast cancer risk from chest CT examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 179(4):303–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher MM, Kalra MK, Toth TL, Wittram C, Saini S, Shepard J (2004) Application of rational practice and technical advances for optimizing radiation dose for chest CT. J Thorac Imaging 19(1):16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoodi M, Chaparian A (2010) Organ doses, effective dose, and cancer risk from coronary CT angiography examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 214(5):1131–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manssor E, Abuderman A, Osman S, Alenezi SB, Almehemeid S, Babikir E, Alkhorayef M, Sulieman A (2015) Radiation doses in chest, abdomen and pelvis CT procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 165(1–4):194–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCollough CH, Christner JA, Kofler JM (2010) How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk? AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(4):890–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin PD, Chawke L, Twomey M, Murphy KP, O’Neill SB, McWilliams SR, James K, Kavanagh RG, Sullivan C, Chan FE, Moore N, O’Connor OJ, Eustace JA, Maher MM (2018) Body composition determinants of radiation dose during abdominopelvic CT. Insights Imaging 9(1):9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNitt-Gray MF (2002) AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT. Radiat Dose CT Radiographics 22(6):1541–1553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Report VII (2005) Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiations: time for reassessment? National Academy of Sciences, Washington (DC)

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Palorini F, Origgi D, Granata C, Matranga D, Salerno S (2014) Adult exposures from MDCT including multiphase studies: first Italian nationwide survey. Eur Radiol 24:469–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickhardt PJ (2018) CT colonography provides new insights into interval cancers. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(5):292–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raman SP, Johnson PT, Deshmukh S, Mahesh M, Grant KL, Fishman EK (2013) CT dose reduction applications: available tools on the latest generation of CT scanners. J Am Coll Radiol 10:37–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salibi PN, Agarwal V, Panczykowski DM, Puccio AM, Sheetz MA (2014) Okonkwo DO (2014) Lifetime attributable risk of cancer from CT among patients surviving severe traumatic brain injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(2):397–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderud A, England A, Hogg P, Fosså K, Svensson SF, Johansen S (2015) Radiation dose differences between thoracic radiotherapy planning CT and thoracic diagnostic CT scans. Radiography 22:107–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer DA, Linton OW (2009) NCRP Report No. 160 Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure—are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 97(1):1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tack D, Gevenois PA (2004) Radiation dose in computed tomography of the chest. JBR-BTR 87(6):281–288

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We especially thank the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, who approved and supported this project. We also thank the Shahid Rahimi Hospital for data collection and management.

Funding

No funding received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Physics, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Afsaneh Mir Derikvand

  2. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Saeed Bagherzadeh

  3. Clinical Research Development Center, Shahid Modarres Educational Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

    Ali MohammadSharifi

  4. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Karim Khoshgard

  5. Department of Medical Physics, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS), Building No. 1Shahid Beheshti Boulevard, Kermanshah, 6715847141, Iran

    Fariba AllahMoradi

Authors
  1. Afsaneh Mir Derikvand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saeed Bagherzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali MohammadSharifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karim Khoshgard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fariba AllahMoradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AMD, SB, AMSH, KKH, and FAM were responsible for the conceptualization and acquisition of the data. AMD and SB were responsible for the methodology. AMD, SB, and FAM were responsible for the writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript. AMD, SB, AMSH, KKH, and FAM were responsible for the administrative, technical, or material support. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fariba AllahMoradi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

All authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (Approval Number: IR.KUMS.REC.1399.1164).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants who voluntarily accepted to participate in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Derikvand, A.M., Bagherzadeh, S., MohammadSharifi, A. et al. Estimation of cancer risks due to chest radiotherapy treatment planning computed tomography (CT) simulations. Radiat Environ Biophys 62, 269–277 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-023-01025-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-023-01025-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation