Stephen Taylor1, Alain Van Muylem2, Nigel Howarth3, Pierre Alain Gevenois4, Denis Tack5. 1. Department of Radiology, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Boulevard Président Kennedy 2, 7000, Mons, Belgium. 2. Department of Pneumology, Hôpital Erasme, Route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Radiology, Clinique des Grangettes, 7 Chemin des Grangettes, 1224, Chêne-Bougeries, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, Hôpital Erasme, Route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Department of Radiology, EpiCURA, Clinique Louis Caty, rue Louis Caty 136, 7331, Baudour, Belgium. denis.tack@skynet.be.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine variability of volume computed tomographic dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) data, and propose a minimum sample size to achieve an expected precision. METHODS: CTDIvol and DLP values of 19,875 consecutive CT acquisitions of abdomen (7268), thorax (3805), lumbar spine (3161), cervical spine (1515) and head (4106) were collected in two centers. Their variabilities were investigated according to sample size (10 to 1000 acquisitions) and patient body weight categories (no weight selection, 67-73 kg and 60-80 kg). The 95 % confidence interval in percentage of their median (CI95/med) value was calculated for increasing sample sizes. We deduced the sample size that set a 95 % CI lower than 10 % of the median (CI95/med ≤ 10 %). RESULTS: Sample size ensuring CI95/med ≤ 10 %, ranged from 15 to 900 depending on the body region and the dose descriptor considered. In sample sizes recommended by regulatory authorities (i.e., from 10-20 patients), mean CTDIvol and DLP of one sample ranged from 0.50 to 2.00 times its actual value extracted from 2000 samples. CONCLUSIONS: The sampling error in CTDIvol and DLP means is high in dose surveys based on small samples of patients. Sample size should be increased at least tenfold to decrease this variability. KEY POINTS: • Variability of dose descriptors is high regardless of the body region. • Variability of dose descriptors depends on weight selection and the region scanned. • Larger samples would reduce sampling errors of radiation dose data in surveys. • Totally or partially disabling AEC reduces dose variability and increases patient dose. • Median values of dose descriptors depend on the body weight selection.
OBJECTIVES: To determine variability of volume computed tomographic dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) data, and propose a minimum sample size to achieve an expected precision. METHODS: CTDIvol and DLP values of 19,875 consecutive CT acquisitions of abdomen (7268), thorax (3805), lumbar spine (3161), cervical spine (1515) and head (4106) were collected in two centers. Their variabilities were investigated according to sample size (10 to 1000 acquisitions) and patient body weight categories (no weight selection, 67-73 kg and 60-80 kg). The 95 % confidence interval in percentage of their median (CI95/med) value was calculated for increasing sample sizes. We deduced the sample size that set a 95 % CI lower than 10 % of the median (CI95/med ≤ 10 %). RESULTS: Sample size ensuring CI95/med ≤ 10 %, ranged from 15 to 900 depending on the body region and the dose descriptor considered. In sample sizes recommended by regulatory authorities (i.e., from 10-20 patients), mean CTDIvol and DLP of one sample ranged from 0.50 to 2.00 times its actual value extracted from 2000 samples. CONCLUSIONS: The sampling error in CTDIvol and DLP means is high in dose surveys based on small samples of patients. Sample size should be increased at least tenfold to decrease this variability. KEY POINTS: • Variability of dose descriptors is high regardless of the body region. • Variability of dose descriptors depends on weight selection and the region scanned. • Larger samples would reduce sampling errors of radiation dose data in surveys. • Totally or partially disabling AEC reduces dose variability and increases patient dose. • Median values of dose descriptors depend on the body weight selection.
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; David J Brenner; S James Adelstein; Donald P Frush; Eric J Hall; Roger W Howell; Cynthia H McCollough; Fred A Mettler; Mark S Pearce; Orhan H Suleiman; James H Thrall; Louis K Wagner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Denis Tack; Andreas Jahnen; Sarah Kohler; Nico Harpes; Viviane De Maertelaer; Carlo Back; Pierre Alain Gevenois Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jodie A Christner; Natalie N Braun; Megan C Jacobsen; Rickey E Carter; James M Kofler; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P C Shrimpton; B F Wall; D G Jones; E S Fisher; M C Hillier; G M Kendall; R M Harrison Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 1986-08 Impact factor: 3.039