Hilde M Olerud1,2, Benthe Toft3, Silje Flatabø4, Andreas Jahnen5, Choonsik Lee6, Isabelle Thierry-Chef7. 1. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), P. O. Box 55, NO-1332, Østerås, Norway. hilde@olerud.net. 2. HSN University College of Southeast Norway, P.O. Box 235, NO- 3603, Kongsberg, Norway. hilde@olerud.net. 3. Gjøvik University College, Teknologivn. 22, NO- 2815, Gjøvik, Norway. 4. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), P. O. Box 55, NO-1332, Østerås, Norway. 5. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), 29 Avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855, Luxembourg, Luxembourg. 6. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Dr., Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. 7. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150, Cours Albert Thomas, Lyon, 69008, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the range of doses in paediatric CT scans conducted in the 1990s in Norway as input to an international epidemiology study: the EPI-CT study, http://epi-ct.iarc.fr/ . METHODS: National Cancer Institute dosimetry system for Computed Tomography (NCICT) program based on pre-calculated organ dose conversion coefficients was used to convert CT Dose Index to organ doses in paediatric CT in the 1990s. Protocols reported from local hospitals in a previous Norwegian CT survey were used as input, presuming these were used without optimization for paediatric patients. RESULTS: Large variations in doses between different scanner models and local scan parameter settings are demonstrated. Small children will receive a factor of 2-3 times higher doses compared with adults if the protocols are not optimized for them. For common CT examinations, the doses to the active bone marrow, breast tissue and brain may have exceeded 30 mGy, 60 mGy and 100 mGy respectively, for the youngest children in the 1990s. CONCLUSIONS: The doses children received from non-optimised CT examinations during the 1990s are of such magnitude that they may provide statistically significant effects in the EPI-CT study, but probably do not reflect current practice. KEY POINTS: • Some organ doses from paediatric CT in the 1990s may have exceeded 100 mGy. • Small children may have received doses 2-3 times higher compared with adults. • Different scanner models varied by a factor of 2-3 in dose to patients. • Different local scan parameter settings gave dose variations of a factor 2-3. • Modern CTs and age-adjusted protocols will give much lower paediatric doses.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the range of doses in paediatric CT scans conducted in the 1990s in Norway as input to an international epidemiology study: the EPI-CT study, http://epi-ct.iarc.fr/ . METHODS: National Cancer Institute dosimetry system for Computed Tomography (NCICT) program based on pre-calculated organ dose conversion coefficients was used to convert CT Dose Index to organ doses in paediatric CT in the 1990s. Protocols reported from local hospitals in a previous Norwegian CT survey were used as input, presuming these were used without optimization for paediatric patients. RESULTS: Large variations in doses between different scanner models and local scan parameter settings are demonstrated. Small children will receive a factor of 2-3 times higher doses compared with adults if the protocols are not optimized for them. For common CT examinations, the doses to the active bone marrow, breast tissue and brain may have exceeded 30 mGy, 60 mGy and 100 mGy respectively, for the youngest children in the 1990s. CONCLUSIONS: The doses children received from non-optimised CT examinations during the 1990s are of such magnitude that they may provide statistically significant effects in the EPI-CT study, but probably do not reflect current practice. KEY POINTS: • Some organ doses from paediatric CT in the 1990s may have exceeded 100 mGy. • Small children may have received doses 2-3 times higher compared with adults. • Different scanner models varied by a factor of 2-3 in dose to patients. • Different local scan parameter settings gave dose variations of a factor 2-3. • Modern CTs and age-adjusted protocols will give much lower paediatric doses.
Authors: D Jackson; K Atkin; F Bettenay; J Clark; M R Ditchfield; J E Grimm; R Linke; G Long; E Onikul; J Pereira; M Phillips; F Wilson; E Paul; S K Goergen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Adam C Turner; Di Zhang; Maryam Khatonabadi; Maria Zankl; John J DeMarco; Chris H Cagnon; Dianna D Cody; Donna M Stevens; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Jérémie Dabin; Eva G Friberg; Johannes Hermen; Tore S Istad; Andreas Jahnen; Lucian Krille; Choonsik Lee; Carlo Maccia; Arvid Nordenskjöld; Hilde M Olerud; Kaddour Rani; Jean-Luc Rehel; Steven L Simon; Lara Struelens; Ausrele Kesminiene Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Choonsik Lee; Neige Journy; Brian E Moroz; Mark Little; Richard Harbron; Kieran McHugh; Mark Pearce; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 0.972