S J Foley1, M F McEntee, L A Rainford. 1. School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. shane.foley@ucd.ie
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To propose Irish CT diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) by collecting radiation doses for the most commonly performed CT examinations. METHODS: A pilot study investigated the most frequent CT examinations. 40 CT sites were then asked to complete a survey booklet to allow the recording of CT parameters for each of 9 CT examinations during a 12-week period. Dose data [CT volume index (CTDI(vol)) and dose-length product (DLP)] on a minimum of 10 average-sized patients in each category were recorded to calculate a mean site CTDI(vol) and DLP value. The rounded 75th percentile was used to calculate a DRL for each site and the country by compiling all results. RESULTS: are compared with international DRL data. Results Data were collected for 3305 patients. 30 sites responded with data for 34 scanners, representing 54% of the national total. All equipment had multislice capability (2-128 slices). DRLs are proposed using CTDI(vol) (mGy) and DLP (mGy cm) for CT head (66/58 and 940, respectively), sinuses (16 and 210, respectively), cervical spine (19 and 420, respectively), thorax (9/11 and 390, respectively), high resolution CT (7 and 280, respectively), CT pulmonary angiography (13 and 430, respectively), multiphase abdomen (13 and 1120, respectively), routine abdomen/pelvis (12 and 600, respectively) and trunk examinations (10/12 and 850, respectively). These values are lower than current DRLs and comparable to other international studies. Wide variations in mean doses are noted across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline figures for Irish CT DRLs are provided on the most frequently performed CT examinations. The variations in dose between CT departments as well as between identical scanners suggest a large potential for optimisation of examinations.
OBJECTIVE: To propose Irish CT diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) by collecting radiation doses for the most commonly performed CT examinations. METHODS: A pilot study investigated the most frequent CT examinations. 40 CT sites were then asked to complete a survey booklet to allow the recording of CT parameters for each of 9 CT examinations during a 12-week period. Dose data [CT volume index (CTDI(vol)) and dose-length product (DLP)] on a minimum of 10 average-sized patients in each category were recorded to calculate a mean site CTDI(vol) and DLP value. The rounded 75th percentile was used to calculate a DRL for each site and the country by compiling all results. RESULTS: are compared with international DRL data. Results Data were collected for 3305 patients. 30 sites responded with data for 34 scanners, representing 54% of the national total. All equipment had multislice capability (2-128 slices). DRLs are proposed using CTDI(vol) (mGy) and DLP (mGy cm) for CT head (66/58 and 940, respectively), sinuses (16 and 210, respectively), cervical spine (19 and 420, respectively), thorax (9/11 and 390, respectively), high resolution CT (7 and 280, respectively), CT pulmonary angiography (13 and 430, respectively), multiphase abdomen (13 and 1120, respectively), routine abdomen/pelvis (12 and 600, respectively) and trunk examinations (10/12 and 850, respectively). These values are lower than current DRLs and comparable to other international studies. Wide variations in mean doses are noted across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline figures for Irish CT DRLs are provided on the most frequently performed CT examinations. The variations in dose between CT departments as well as between identical scanners suggest a large potential for optimisation of examinations.
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Dianna D Cody; John M Boone; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Amy Berrington de González; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca Lewis; Fred Mettler; Charles Land Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-12-14
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Leena M Hamberg; Michael A Blake; Jo-Anne Shepard; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Y Matsunaga; A Kawaguchi; K Kobayashi; Y Kinomura; M Kobayashi; Y Asada; K Minami; S Suzuki; K Chida Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Geoffrey K Korir; Jeska S Wambani; Ian K Korir; Mark A Tries; Patrick K Boen Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 0.972