Literature DB >> 24337760

X-ray population exposure from projection radiology and computed tomography in Emilia-Romagna from 2001 to 2010: comparison of ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 weighting factors.

Gaetano Compagnone1, Paola Angelini, Sara Domenichelli.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This paper shows the trends from 2001 to 2010 of per caput and collective effective dose (S) to the Emilia-Romagna population due to radiation exposure from projection radiology (PR) and computed tomography (CT), calculated according to both ICRP60 and ICRP103 tissue weighting factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The frequency of examinations and dose calculations were based on data provided directly by Emilia-Romagna Health Trusts. In particular, effective doses were evaluated using the tissue weighting (w T) factors reported both in ICRP60 (w T,60) and in ICRP103 (w T,103).
RESULTS: A decrease in the frequency of PR skull examinations and an increase in the frequency of mammography, CT of the abdomen, chest, and head-neck were found during the decade. In 2010, the PR/CT procedures contributed 75.4 %/24.6 % to examination frequency and approximately 10 %/90 % to dose; S was 6,169.2 man Sv when w T,60 was used and 5,855.1-6,665.5 man Sv when w T,103 in two different mathematical models was utilised.
CONCLUSIONS: Dose estimates pre- and post-ICRP103 must be compared carefully, because changes due to different radiological practices could be confused with changes due to the use of different w T's. In general, dose evaluations with the use of w T,60 until 2007 and w T,103 from 2008 seem to be consistent and coherent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24337760     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-013-0348-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  24 in total

Review 1.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Eric J Hall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase.

Authors:  David A Schauer; Otha W Linton
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality?

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; John D Keen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway.

Authors:  Mette Kalager; Marvin Zelen; Frøydis Langmark; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Effective dose calculations in conventional diagnostic X-ray examinations for adult and paediatric patients in a large Italian hospital.

Authors:  Gaetano Compagnone; Laura Pagan; Carlo Bergamini
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

6.  Radiation doses to the population of the Emilia-Romagna region from medical exposures.

Authors:  G Compagnone; P Angelini; S Domenichelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Analysis of Current Practice of CT examinations.

Authors:  Jolanta Hansen; Anne Grethe Jurik
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.089

8.  Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT). ICRP Publication 102.

Authors:  J Valentin
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2007

9.  Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening.

Authors:  G van Schoor; S M Moss; J D M Otten; R Donders; E Paap; G J den Heeten; R Holland; M J M Broeders; A L M Verbeek
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Advanced breast cancer incidence following population-based mammographic screening.

Authors:  P Autier; M Boniol; R Middleton; J F Doré; C Héry; T Zheng; A Gavin
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.