Alexander A Schegerer1, Hans-Dieter Nagel2, Georg Stamm3, Gerhard Adam4, Gunnar Brix5. 1. Department of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany. Electronic address: aschegerer@bfs.de. 2. Science & Technology for Radiology - SASCRAD, Buchholz, Germany. 3. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of the Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess patient doses and relative frequencies of standard CT examinations performed in Germany in 2013/14 as well as the effect of modern CT technology on patient exposure. METHODS: All known CT facilities in Germany were requested to complete a questionnaire on the frequency of 34 examinations and the respective parameter settings used. Taking into account type-specific properties of each scanner, effective doses were estimated for each reported examination. The mean and the percentiles of the CT dose index, scan length, dose length product, and effective dose were determined for each type of examination. RESULTS: According to the data provided for about 11% of all medical CT scanners operated in 2013/14, the effective dose was 4.6/5.9mSv per scan/examination. The effective dose was significantly reduced by about 15% compared to the CT practice before 2010. Modern CT technology, such as tube current modulation and iterative image reconstruction reduced the effective dose significantly by 6% and 13%, respectively. The mean effective dose applied at scanners produced by different manufacturers differed by 25%, at maximum. CONCLUSION: Patient exposure was reduced substantially in recent years. There is, however, still a considerable potential for further dose reduction by adapting scan protocols to the medical purpose and by a consequent exploitation of modern CT technologies.
PURPOSE: To assess patient doses and relative frequencies of standard CT examinations performed in Germany in 2013/14 as well as the effect of modern CT technology on patient exposure. METHODS: All known CT facilities in Germany were requested to complete a questionnaire on the frequency of 34 examinations and the respective parameter settings used. Taking into account type-specific properties of each scanner, effective doses were estimated for each reported examination. The mean and the percentiles of the CT dose index, scan length, dose length product, and effective dose were determined for each type of examination. RESULTS: According to the data provided for about 11% of all medical CT scanners operated in 2013/14, the effective dose was 4.6/5.9mSv per scan/examination. The effective dose was significantly reduced by about 15% compared to the CT practice before 2010. Modern CT technology, such as tube current modulation and iterative image reconstruction reduced the effective dose significantly by 6% and 13%, respectively. The mean effective dose applied at scanners produced by different manufacturers differed by 25%, at maximum. CONCLUSION:Patient exposure was reduced substantially in recent years. There is, however, still a considerable potential for further dose reduction by adapting scan protocols to the medical purpose and by a consequent exploitation of modern CT technologies.
Authors: Daniel Schmitz; Thomas Vogl; Nour-Eldin Abdelrehim Nour-Eldin; Boris Radeleff; Jens-Christian Kröger; Andreas H Mahnken; Harald Ittrich; Hans-Björn Gehl; Bernd Plessow; Joachim Böttcher; Josef Tacke; Markus Wispler; Ulrich Rosien; Wolfgang Schorr; Markus Joerdens; Nicolas Glaser; Erik-Sebastian Fuchs; Andrea Tal; Bettina Friesenhahn-Ochs; Thomas Leimbach; Lars Höpner; Marko Weber; Stefan Gölder; Michael Böhmig; Svetlana Hetjens; Jochen Rudi; Alexander Schegerer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Malte Lennart Warncke; Nis Jesper Wiese; Enver Tahir; Susanne Sehner; Axel Heinemann; Marc Regier; Klaus Püschel; Gerhard Adam; Julius Matthias Weinrich; Azien Laqmani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Denise Bos; Sophronia Yu; Jason Luong; Philip Chu; Yifei Wang; Andrew J Einstein; Jay Starkey; Bradley N Delman; Phuong-Anh T Duong; Marco Das; Sebastian Schindera; Allen R Goode; Fiona MacLeod; Axel Wetter; Rebecca Neill; Ryan K Lee; Jodi Roehm; James A Seibert; Luisa F Cervantes; Nima Kasraie; Pavlina Pike; Anokh Pahwa; Cécile R L P N Jeukens; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicola Alessio; Tiziana Squillaro; Giovanni Di Bernardo; Giovanni Galano; Roberto De Rosa; Mariarosa A B Melone; Gianfranco Peluso; Umberto Galderisi Journal: Elife Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 8.713