Literature DB >> 27438166

Predictors of CT Radiation Dose and Their Effect on Patient Care: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Automated Data.

Rebecca Smith-Bindman1, Yifei Wang1, Thomas R Yellen-Nelson1, Michelle Moghadassi1, Nicole Wilson1, Robert Gould1, Anthony Seibert1, John M Boone1, Mayil Krishnam1, Ramit Lamba1, David J Hall1, Diana L Miglioretti1.   

Abstract

Purpose To determine patient, vendor, and institutional factors that influence computed tomography (CT) radiation dose. Materials and Methods The relevant institutional review boards approved this HIPAA-compliant study, with waiver of informed consent. Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and effective dose in 274 124 head, chest, and abdominal CT examinations performed in adult patients at 12 facilities in 2013 were collected prospectively. Patient, vendor, and institutional characteristics that could be used to predict (a) median dose by using linear regression after log transformation of doses and (b) high-dose examinations (top 25% of dose within anatomic strata) by using modified Poisson regression were assessed. Results There was wide variation in dose within and across medical centers. For chest CTDIvol, overall median dose across all institutions was 11 mGy, and institutional median dose was 7-16 mGy. Models including patient, vendor, and institutional factors were good for prediction of median doses (R2 = 0.31-0.61). The specific institution where the examination was performed (reflecting the specific protocols used) accounted for a moderate to large proportion of dose variation. For chest CTDIvol, unadjusted median CTDIvol was 16.5 mGy at one institution and 6.7 mGy at another (adjusted relative median dose, 2.6 mGy [95% confidence interval: 2.5, 2.7]). Several variables were important predictors that a patient would undergo high-dose CT. These included patient size, the specific institution where CT was performed, and the use of multiphase scanning. For example, while 49% of patients (21 411 of 43 696) who underwent multiphase abdominal CT had a high-dose examination, 8% of patients (4977 of 62 212) who underwent single-phase CT had a high-dose examination (adjusted relative risk, 6.20 [95% CI: 6.17, 6.23]). If all patients had been examined with single-phase CT, 69% (18 208 of 26 388) of high-dose examinations would have been eliminated. Patient size, institutional-specific protocols, and multiphase scanning were the most important predictors of dose (change in R2 = 8%-32%), followed by manufacturer and iterative reconstruction (change in R2, 0.2%-15.0%). Conclusion CT doses vary considerably within and across facilities. The primary factors that influenced dose variation were multiphase scanning and institutional protocol choices. It is unknown if the variation in these factors influenced diagnostic accuracy. © RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27438166      PMCID: PMC5207127          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 in total

1.  Point and interval estimates of partial population attributable risks in cohort studies: examples and software.

Authors:  D Spiegelman; E Hertzmark; H C Wand
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2007

3.  Multidetector CT radiation dose optimisation in adults: short- and long-term effects of a clinical audit.

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

4.  Radiation Doses in Consecutive CT Examinations from Five University of California Medical Centers.

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

5.  Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: a report from the American College of Radiology National Radiology Data Registry.

Authors:  Adam Lukasiewicz; Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield; Laura Coombs; Monica Ghita; Jeffrey Weinreb; Gowthaman Gunabushanam; Christopher L Moore
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-27       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Eric Johnson; Choonsik Lee; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael Flynn; Robert T Greenlee; Randell L Kruger; Mark C Hornbrook; Douglas Roblin; Leif I Solberg; Nicholas Vanneman; Sheila Weinmann; Andrew E Williams
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Jafi Lipson; Ralph Marcus; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Robert Gould; Amy Berrington de González; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14
  7 in total
  13 in total

1.  CT diagnostic reference levels: are they appropriately computed?

Authors:  Thibault Vanaudenhove; Alain Van Muylem; Nigel Howarth; Pierre Alain Gevenois; Denis Tack
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Evaluation of Lower-Dose Spiral Head CT for Detection of Intracranial Findings Causing Neurologic Deficits.

Authors:  J G Fletcher; D R DeLone; A L Kotsenas; N G Campeau; V T Lehman; L Yu; S Leng; D R Holmes; P K Edwards; M P Johnson; G J Michalak; R E Carter; C H McCollough
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Computed Tomography Radiation Exposure Among Referred Kidney Stone Patients: Results from the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter.

Authors:  David T Tzou; Samuel Zetumer; Manint Usawachintachit; Kazumi Taguchi; Seth K Bechis; Brian D Duty; Jonathan D Harper; Ryan S Hsi; Mathew Sorensen; Roger L Sur; Shalonda Reliford-Titus; Helena C Chang; Dylan Isaacson; David B Bayne; Zhen J Wang; Marshall L Stoller; Thomas Chi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Multiphase acquisitions in pediatric abdominal-pelvic CT are a common practice and contribute to unnecessary radiation dose.

Authors:  Bradley S Rostad; Kimberly E Applegate; Tammy Kim; Renee M Mansour; Sarah S Milla
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-07-07

5.  Potential of a machine-learning model for dose optimization in CT quality assurance.

Authors:  Axel Meineke; Christian Rubbert; Lino M Sawicki; Christoph Thomas; Yan Klosterkemper; Elisabeth Appel; Julian Caspers; Oliver T Bethge; Patric Kröpil; Gerald Antoch; Johannes Boos
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Optimizing Radiation Doses for Computed Tomography Across Institutions: Dose Auditing and Best Practices.

Authors:  Joshua Demb; Philip Chu; Thomas Nelson; David Hall; Anthony Seibert; Ramit Lamba; John Boone; Mayil Krishnam; Christopher Cagnon; Maryam Bostani; Robert Gould; Diana Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Adult Computed Tomography examinations in Uganda: Towards determining the National Diagnostic Reference Levels.

Authors:  Geoffrey Erem; Faith Ameda; Caroline Otike; William Olwit; Aloysius G Mubuuke; Cyril Schandorf; Akisophel Kisolo; Michael G Kawooya
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 2.795

8.  Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness.

Authors:  Madan M Rehani; Emily R Melick; Raza M Alvi; Ruhani Doda Khera; Salma Batool-Anwar; Tomas G Neilan; Michael Bettmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  CT Angiography in the Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease Feasibility of an Ultra-Low Volume Contrast Media Protocol.

Authors:  Barbora Horehledova; Casper Mihl; Gianluca Milanese; Rutger Brans; Nienke G Eijsvoogel; Babs M F Hendriks; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 2.740

10.  Application of multiple injections of contrast agent in head and neck CT arteriovenous angiography in children: Study protocol clinical trial (SPIRIT Compliant).

Authors:  Shilong Tang; Guanping Zhang; Zhuo Chen; Xianfan Liu; Xiao Fan; Daisong Liu; Ling He
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.