Xstrahl In Action: MicroCT imaging dose to mouse organs using Monte Carlo model

 In Life Sciences News
Xstrahl SARRP in lab environment

Xstrahl SARRP in lab environment

In their study “MicroCT imaging dose to mouse organs using a validated Monte Carlo model of the small animal radiation research platform (SARRP)” Johnstone CD and Bazalova-Carter M, establish imaging dose to mouse organs with a validated Monte Carlo (MC) model of the image-guided Small Animal Radiation Research Platform (SARRP) and to investigate the effect of scatter from the internal walls on animal therapy dose determination.

A MC model of the SARRP was built in the BEAMnrc code and validated with a series of homogeneous and heterogeneous phantom measurements. A segmented microCT scan of a mouse was used in DOSXYZnrc to determine mouse organ microCT imaging doses to 15-35 g mice for the SARRP pancake (mouse lying on couch) and standard (mouse standing on couch) imaging geometries for 40-80 kVp tube voltages. Imaging dose for off-center positioning shifts and maintaining image noise across tube voltages were also calculated. Half-value layer (HVL) measurements for the 220 kVp therapy beam in the presence of the SARRP shielding cabinet were modeled in BEAMnrc and compared to the 100 cm source-to-detector distance (SDD) in the scatter free, narrow-beam geometry recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 61 (AAPM TG-61).

For a 60 kVp, 0.8 mA, and 60 s scan protocol, maximum mean organ imaging doses to boney and non-boney structures were 10.5 cGy and 3.5 cGy, respectively, for an average size 20 g mouse. Current-exposure combinations above 323, 203, 147, 116, and 95 mAs for 40-80 kVp tube voltages, respectively, will increase body doses above 10 cGy. MicroCT mean body dose was 18% lower in pancake compared to standard imaging geometry. An 11% difference in measured HVL at a 50 cm SDD was found compared to MC simulated HVL for the AAPM TG-61 recommended scatter free geometry at a 100 cm SDD. This change in HVL resulted in a 0.5% change in absorbed dose to water calculations for the treatment beam.