Yuta Matsunaga1,2, Ai Kawaguchi2,3, Kenichi Kobayashi4, Masanao Kobayashi5, Yasuki Asada5, Kazuyuki Minami5, Shoichi Suzuki5, Koichi Chida2. 1. 1 Department of Imaging, Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital, Nagoya, Japan. 2. 2 Graduate School of Medicine, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Toyota Memorial Hospital, Toyota, Japan. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan. 5. 5 School of Health Sciences, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to estimate the effective radiation doses from CT examinations of both adults and children in Japan and to study the impact of various scan parameters on the effective doses. METHODS: A questionnaire, which contained detailed questions on the CT scan parameters employed, was distributed to 3000 facilities throughout Japan. For each scanner protocol, the effective doses for head (non-helical and helical), chest and upper abdomen acquisitions were estimated using ImPACT CT Patient Dosimetry Calculator software v. 1.0.4 (St George's Hospital, London, UK). RESULTS: The mean effective doses for chest and abdominal examinations using 80-110 kV were significantly lower than those using 120 kV. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean effective doses for head scans between facilities employing 80-110 kV and 120 kV. In chest and abdominal examinations, the mean effective doses using CT scanners from Western manufacturers [Siemens (Forchheim, Germany), Philips (Eindhoven, Netherlands) and GE Medical Systems (Milwaukee, WI)] were significantly lower than those of examinations using Japanese scanners [Hitachi (Kashiwa, Japan) and Toshiba (Otawara, Tochigi, Japan)], except for in paediatric chest examinations. CONCLUSION: The mean effective doses for adult head, chest and abdominal CT examinations were 2.9, 7.7 and 10.0 mSv, respectively, whereas the corresponding mean effective doses for paediatric examinations were 2.6, 7.1 and 7.7 mSv, respectively. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Facilities using CT scanners by Western manufacturers commonly adopt low-tube-voltage techniques, and low-tube-voltage CT may be useful for reducing the radiation doses to the patients, particularly for the body region.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to estimate the effective radiation doses from CT examinations of both adults and children in Japan and to study the impact of various scan parameters on the effective doses. METHODS: A questionnaire, which contained detailed questions on the CT scan parameters employed, was distributed to 3000 facilities throughout Japan. For each scanner protocol, the effective doses for head (non-helical and helical), chest and upper abdomen acquisitions were estimated using ImPACT CT Patient Dosimetry Calculator software v. 1.0.4 (St George's Hospital, London, UK). RESULTS: The mean effective doses for chest and abdominal examinations using 80-110 kV were significantly lower than those using 120 kV. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean effective doses for head scans between facilities employing 80-110 kV and 120 kV. In chest and abdominal examinations, the mean effective doses using CT scanners from Western manufacturers [Siemens (Forchheim, Germany), Philips (Eindhoven, Netherlands) and GE Medical Systems (Milwaukee, WI)] were significantly lower than those of examinations using Japanese scanners [Hitachi (Kashiwa, Japan) and Toshiba (Otawara, Tochigi, Japan)], except for in paediatric chest examinations. CONCLUSION: The mean effective doses for adult head, chest and abdominal CT examinations were 2.9, 7.7 and 10.0 mSv, respectively, whereas the corresponding mean effective doses for paediatric examinations were 2.6, 7.1 and 7.7 mSv, respectively. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Facilities using CT scanners by Western manufacturers commonly adopt low-tube-voltage techniques, and low-tube-voltage CT may be useful for reducing the radiation doses to the patients, particularly for the body region.
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Ravi S Kamath; Elkan F Halpern; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Michelle Moghadassi; Nicole Wilson; Thomas R Nelson; John M Boone; Christopher H Cagnon; Robert Gould; David J Hall; Mayil Krishnam; Ramit Lamba; Michael McNitt-Gray; Anthony Seibert; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sheila C Berlin; Dayna M Weinert; Pauravi S Vasavada; Claudia Martinez-Rios; Roshni A Parikh; Michael A Wien; David W Jordan; Ronald D Novak Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.959