Literature DB >> 18443016

Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced.

D J Brenner1.   

Abstract

The effective dose is designed to provide a single number proportional to the radiobiological "detriment" from a particular, often inhomogeneous, radiation exposure, with detriment representing a balance between carcinogenesis, life shortening and hereditary effects. It is commonly used to allow a comparison of the risks associated with different spatial dose distributions produced by different imaging techniques. The effective dose represents questionable science: two of the most important reasons for this are that the tissue-specific weighting factors used to calculate effective dose are a subjective mix of different endpoints, and that the marked and differing age dependencies for different endpoints are not taken into account. Importantly, the effective dose is prone to misuse, with widespread confusion between effective dose, equivalent dose and absorbed dose. It is suggested here that effective dose could and should be replaced by a new quantity that does not have these problems. An appropriate new quantity could be "effective risk", which, like effective dose, is a weighted sum of equivalent doses to different tissues; unlike effective dose, where the tissue-dependent weighting factors are a set of subjective committee-defined numbers, the weighting factors for effective risk would simply be evaluated tissue-specific lifetime cancer risks per unit equivalent dose. The resulting quantity would perform the same comparative role as effective dose; it would have the potential to be age- and, if desired, gender-specific, just as easy to estimate, less prone to misuse, more directly interpretable, and based on more defensible science.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18443016     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/22942198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  37 in total

1.  Updated estimates of typical effective doses for common CT examinations in the UK following the 2011 national review.

Authors:  Paul C Shrimpton; Jan T M Jansen; John D Harrison
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Computed tomographies and cancer risk in children: a literature overview of CT practices, risk estimations and an epidemiologic cohort study proposal.

Authors:  Lucian Krille; Hajo Zeeb; Andreas Jahnen; Peter Mildenberger; Michael Seidenbusch; Karl Schneider; Gerald Weisser; Gael Hammer; Peter Scholz; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2012-02-05       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  Absorbed radiation dose in radiosensitive organs during coronary CT angiography using 320-MDCT: effect of maximum tube voltage and heart rate variations.

Authors:  Boris Nikolic; Faisal Khosa; Pei-Jan Paul Lin; Atif N Khan; Sheryar Sarwar; Chun-Shan Yam; Laurence E Court; Vassilios Raptopoulos; Melvin E Clouse
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Radiation dose from X-ray examinations of impacted canines: cone beam CT vs two-dimensional imaging.

Authors:  Nils Kadesjö; Randi Lynds; Mats Nilsson; Xie-Qi Shi
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Effective dose estimation and lifetime cancer mortality risk assessment from exposure to Chernobyl 137Cs on the territory of Belgrade City and the region of Vojvodina, Serbia.

Authors:  Vesna Spasić-Jokić; Ljubica Zupunski; Ljiljana Janković; Vojin Gordanić
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Prioritizing examination-centered over patient-centered dose reduction: a hazard of institutional "benchmarking".

Authors:  Jonathan D Eisenberg; Michael E Gilmore; Mannudeep K Kalra; Chung Yin Kong; Pari V Pandharipande
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Quantification of radiation dose reduction by reducing z-axis coverage in 320-detector coronary CT angiography.

Authors:  David J Murphy; Abhishek Keraliya; Nathan Himes; Ayaz Aghayev; Ron Blankstein; Michael L Steigner
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Patient-specific dose estimation for pediatric chest CT.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Ehsan Samei; W Paul Segars; Gregory M Sturgeon; James G Colsher; Donald P Frush
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Current knowledge on tumour induction by computed tomography should be carefully used.

Authors:  Cristian Candela-Juan; Alegría Montoro; Enrique Ruiz-Martínez; Juan Ignacio Villaescusa; Luis Martí-Bonmatí
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Estimation of human absorbed dose for (166)Ho-PAM: comparison with (166)Ho-DOTMP and (166)Ho-TTHMP.

Authors:  Mahdokht Vaez-Tehrani; Samaneh Zolghadri; Hassan Yousefnia; Hossein Afarideh
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.