A study on correlation between thyroid CT radiation dose, image quality and female body composition

doi:10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2025.04.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Background and purpose: With the increasing use of medical imaging examinations, Computed tomography (CT) scans have become one of the primary sources of effective dose. This study analyzed the correlation between radiation dose, image quality and body composition in thyroid CT to provide a data foundation for better control of radiation dose and image quality in the future. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent thyroid CT scans at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from January 2015 to December 2019. CT values and standard deviations (SD) of the homogeneous parenchyma of the thyroid were collected, and CT values and SD values of adjacent subcutaneous fat tissue were measured with the same region of interest (ROI) size. All data were measured three times to obtain the average value, and the volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) were recorded. Effective dose values and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for various parts were calculated. All patients underwent bone density examinations, and patient height, weight, body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA), and the percentage of muscle and fat in the spine and thighs were recorded. Results: A total of 104 patients were enrolled in this study. The SNR of thyroid CT images and the percentage of spinal muscle (r=0.284, P=0.004), CNR of thyroid CT images and the percentage of spinal fat (r=0.197, P=0.045), and the effective dose of thyroid CT images and age, weight, BMI, thigh fat percentage, and body surface area (r=0.221, 0.247, 0.260, 0.262, and 0.222; P=0.024, 0.011, 0.008, 0.007 and 0.024) were positively correlated. While, SNR and age, weight, BMI, and the percentage of spinal fat (r=-0.292, -0.198, -0.207, and -0.284; P=0.003, 0.044, 0.035, 0.004), CNR and the percentage of spinal muscle (r=-0.197, P=0.045), and the effective dose and the percentage of thigh muscle (r=-0.262, P=0.007) were negatively correlated. Conclusion: The radiation dose in thyroid CT is correlated with female body composition. The image quality is related to female body composition, providing a data foundation for better control of radiation dose and image quality in the future.

Key words: Radiation dose, Body composition, Effective dose, Signal-to-noise ratio, Contrast-to-noise ratio

SHEN Xigang, LIN Chengxiang, PENG Weijun, GU Yajia. A study on correlation between thyroid CT radiation dose, image quality and female body composition[J]. China Oncology, 2025, 35(4): 418-423.

Figures/Tables 4

Fig. 1

Tab. 1

Tab. 2

Tab. 3

References 20

[1]	HAN B F, ZHENG R S, ZENG H M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2022[J]. J Natl Cancer Cent, 2024, 4(1): 47-53.
[2]	牛延涛, 张永县, 卓维海, 等. 加强放射诊断辐射剂量管理的必要性及应对策略[J]. 中华放射医学与防护杂志, 2023, 23(4): 241-247.
	NIU Y T, ZHANG Y X, ZHUO W H, et al. The necessity and countermeasures of strengthening radiation dose management in diagnostic radiology[J]. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2023, 23(4): 241-247.
[3]	刘慧敏, 乔丽颖, 董玮琪, 等. 内蒙古2010—2015年甲状腺癌发病与死亡现状及趋势分析[J]. 中华肿瘤防治杂志, 2020, 27(24): 1950-1956.
	LIU H M, QIAO L Y, DONG W Q, et al. Epidemiological characteristics and trends of thyroid cancer in Inner Mongolia, 2010-2015[J]. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat, 2020, 27(24): 1950-1956.
[4]	GONZALEZ-GUINDALINI F D, BOTELHO M P F, TÖRE H G, et al. MDCT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis using attenuation-based automated tube voltage selection in combination with iterative reconstruction: an intrapatient study of radiation dose and image quality[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2013, 201(5): 1075-1082.
[5]	European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography[J]. Report Eur, 1999, 16262.
[6]	WU Q, ZHOU Y, FAN X, et al. Evaluation of nine formulas for estimating the body surface area of children with hematological malignancies[J]. Front Pediatr, 2022, 10: 989049.
[7]	ROSENKRANTZ A B, LIM R P, HAGHIGHI M, et al. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2013, 201(4): W612-W618.
[8]	刘宇飞, 孙全富. 电离辐射照射与甲状腺结节关系研究进展[J]. 中国职业医学, 2013, 40(5): 468-471.
	LIU Y F, SUN Q F. Research progress on correlation between ionizing radiation exposure and thyroid nodule[J]. China Occup Med, 2013, 40(5): 468-471.
[9]	LOOMANS-KROPP H A, DUNN B K, KRAMER B S, et al. Thyroid incidentalomas in association with low-dose computed tomography in the national lung screening trial[J]. Am J Epidemiol, 2020, 189(1): 27-33.
[10]	卢光明. 积极推进超低剂量CT血管成像研究[J]. 放射学实践, 2014, 29(6): 582-583.
	LU G M. Actively promote the study of ultra-low dose CT angiography[J]. Radiol Pract, 2014, 29(6): 582-583.
[11]	JU Y H, LEE G, LEE J W, et al. Ultra-low-dose lung screening CT with model-based iterative reconstruction: an assessment of image quality and lesion conspicuity[J]. Acta Radiol, 2018, 59(5): 553-559. doi: 10.1177/0284185117726099 pmid: 28786301
[12]	MOLONEY F, JAMES K, TWOMEY M, et al. Low-dose CT imaging of the acute abdomen using model-based iterative reconstruction: a prospective study[J]. Emerg Radiol, 2019, 26(2): 169-177. doi: 10.1007/s10140-018-1658-z pmid: 30448900
[13]	SMITH-BINDMAN R, WANG Y F, NELSON T R, et al. Predictors of CT radiation dose and their effect on patient care: a comprehensive analysis using automated data[J]. Radiology, 2017, 282(1): 182-193.
[14]	BOOS J, MEINEKE A, RUBBERT C, et al. Cloud-based CT dose monitoring using the DICOM-structured report: fully automated analysis in regard to national diagnostic reference levels[J]. Rofo, 2016, 188(3): 288-294.
[15]	CHAN V O, MCDERMOTT S, BUCKLEY O, et al. The relationship of body mass index and abdominal fat on the radiation dose received during routine computed tomographic imaging of the abdomen and pelvis[J]. Can Assoc Radiol J, 2012, 63(4): 260-266. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2011.02.006 pmid: 22136968
[16]	TIAN X Y, LI X, SEGARS W P, et al. Patient- and cohort-specific dose and risk estimation for abdominopelvic CT: a study based on 100 patients[C]//Medical Imaging 2012:Physics of Medical Imaging. San Diego, California, USA. SPIE, 2012.
[17]	MCLAUGHLIN P D, CHAWKE L, TWOMEY M, et al. Body composition determinants of radiation dose during abdominopelvic CT[J]. Insights Imag, 2018, 9(1): 9-16.
[18]	ISRAEL G M, CICCHIELLO L, BRINK J, et al. Patient size and radiation exposure in thoracic, pelvic, and abdominal CT examinations performed with automatic exposure control[J]. Am J Roentgenol, 2010, 195(6): 1342-1346. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3331 pmid: 21098193
[19]	沈茜刚, 顾雅佳, 郑晓静, 等. 乳腺X线摄影辐射剂量、乳腺密度及体成分三者间的相关性研究[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2018, 28(10): 755-761. doi: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2018.10.006
	SHEN X G, GU Y J, ZHENG X J, et al. The correlation study among mammographic radiation dose, breast density and body composition in breast cancer[J]. China Oncol, 2018, 28(10): 755-761.
[20]	季宇, 郝玉娟, 刘佩芳, 等. 乳腺X线摄影和超声检查诊断疾病准确性及与女性体质量指数、乳房体积及乳腺密度的相关性研究[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2017, 51(2): 123-126.
	JI Y, HAO Y J, LIU P F, et al. Study on diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography and its correlation with female body mass index, breast volume, breast density of breast cancer[J]. Chin J Radiol, 2017, 51(2): 123-126.

Index	TCTv1	TCTv2	TCTv3	MTCTv	TSDv1	TSDv2	TSDv3	MTSDv	SNR	MFCTv	MFSDv	CNR
Age	-0.234^*	-0.227^*	-0.250^*	-0.243^*	0.196^*	0.107	0.123	0.176	-0.292^**	-0.311^**	-0.03	0.004
Height	-0.138	-0.137	-0.164	-0.15	-0.026	-0.096	-0.035	-0.07	-0.004	-0.031	0.078	-0.143
Weight	-0.374^**	-0.379^**	-0.331^**	-0.371^**	0.13	0.04	-0.029	0.059	-0.198^*	-0.443^**	-0.065	-0.011
BMI	-0.342^**	-0.347^**	-0.287^**	-0.335^**	0.154	0.072	-0.016	0.089	-0.207^*	-0.444^**	-0.097	0.038
Thigh fat/%	-0.087	-0.08	-0.069	-0.081	-0.001	-0.006	0.068	0.023	-0.059	-0.363^**	-0.071	0.116
Thigh muscle/%	0.087	0.08	0.069	0.081	0.001	0.006	-0.068	-0.023	0.059	0.363^**	0.071	-0.116
Spine fat/%	-0.179	-0.221^*	-0.207^*	-0.208^*	0.154	0.152	0.108	0.176	-0.284^**	-0.637^**	-0.118	0.197^*
Spine muscle/%	0.179	0.221^*	0.207^*	0.208^*	-0.154	-0.152	-0.108	-0.176	0.284^**	0.637^**	0.118	-0.197^*
BSA	-0.371^**	-0.376^**	-0.338^**	-0.372^**	0.113	0.016	-0.034	0.039	-0.182	-0.412^**	-0.043	-0.04

Index	Sample size	Mean	SD	Measure of skewness	Kurtosis	The statistic D value	P value
MTCTv	104	159.506	19.236	0.318	1.362	0.073	0.186
MTSDv	104	9.561	2.755	0.762	1.090	0.075	0.149
SNR	104	18.013	5.468	0.881	0.934	0.098	0.015^*
MFCTv	104	-86.987	9.842	1.095	1.713	0.111	0.003^**
MFSDv	104	9.247	3.256	3.166	18.067	0.165	0.000^**
CNR	104	0.968	9.035	0.649	0.770	0.082	0.079
CTDI	104	13.089	3.735	1.023	1.572	0.120	0.001^**
DLP	104	309.049	70.142	0.490	-0.633	0.119	0.001^*
ED	104	1.669	0.379	0.489	-0.633	0.119	0.001^**
Age	104	52.486	11.596	-0.336	-0.559	0.109	0.004^*
Height	104	159.895	4.863	0.391	1.949	0.091	0.031^*
Weight	104	59.714	9.763	2.045	8.008	0.143	0.000^**
BMI	104	23.328	3.477	2.438	13.336	0.126	0.000^*
Thigh fat/%	104	26.952	4.202	0.321	1.784	0.053	0.662
Thigh muscle/%	104	73.048	4.202	-0.321	1.784	0.053	0.662
Spine fat/%	104	31.992	8.474	-0.318	-0.307	0.056	0.572
Spine muscle/%	104	68.008	8.474	0.318	-0.307	0.056	0.572
BSA	104	1.587	0.140	1.759	5.899	0.103	0.008^**

Index	CTDIvol	DLP	k value mSv/(mGy•cm)	ED
Age	0.084	0.222^*	0.0054	0.221^*
Height	-0.113	-0.022	0.0054	-0.022
Weight	0.264^**	0.248^*	0.0054	0.247^*
BMI	0.318^**	0.260^**	0.0054	0.260^**
Thigh fat/%	0.244^*	0.262^**	0.0054	0.262^**
Thigh muscle/%	-0.244^*	-0.262^**	0.0054	-0.262^**
Spine fat/%	0.233^*	0.179	0.0054	0.179
Spine muscle/%	-0.233^*	-0.179	0.0054	-0.179
BSA	0.218^*	0.222^*	0.0054	0.222^*