Anushri Parakh1,2, Andre Euler1,3, Zsolt Szucs-Farkas4, Sebastian T Schindera1,5. 1. 1 Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel, CH 4031, Switzerland. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, Hospital Centre of Biel, Biel, Switzerland. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare diagnostic reference levels from a local European CT dose registry, using radiation-tracking software from a large patient sample, with preexisting European and North American diagnostic reference levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data (n = 43,761 CT scans obtained over the course of 2 years) for the European local CT dose registry were obtained from eight CT scanners at six institutions. Means, medians, and interquartile ranges of volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate, and effective dose values for CT examinations of the head, paranasal sinuses, thorax, pulmonary angiogram, abdomen-pelvis, renal-colic, thorax-abdomen-pelvis, and thoracoabdominal angiogram were obtained using radiation-tracking software. Metrics from this registry were compared with diagnostic reference levels from Canada and California (published in 2015), the American College of Radiology (ACR) dose index registry (2015), and national diagnostic reference levels from local CT dose registries in Switzerland (2010), the United Kingdom (2011), and Portugal (2015). RESULTS: Our local registry had a lower 75th percentile CTDIvol for all protocols than did the individual internationally sourced data. Compared with our study, the ACR dose index registry had higher 75th percentile CTDIvol values by 55% for head, 240% for thorax, 28% for abdomen-pelvis, 42% for thorax-abdomen-pelvis, 128% for pulmonary angiogram, 138% for renal-colic, and 58% for paranasal sinus studies. CONCLUSION: Our local registry had lower diagnostic reference level values than did existing European and North American diagnostic reference levels. Automated radiation-tracking software could be used to establish and update existing diagnostic reference levels because they are capable of analyzing large datasets meaningfully.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare diagnostic reference levels from a local European CT dose registry, using radiation-tracking software from a large patient sample, with preexisting European and North American diagnostic reference levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data (n = 43,761 CT scans obtained over the course of 2 years) for the European local CT dose registry were obtained from eight CT scanners at six institutions. Means, medians, and interquartile ranges of volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate, and effective dose values for CT examinations of the head, paranasal sinuses, thorax, pulmonary angiogram, abdomen-pelvis, renal-colic, thorax-abdomen-pelvis, and thoracoabdominal angiogram were obtained using radiation-tracking software. Metrics from this registry were compared with diagnostic reference levels from Canada and California (published in 2015), the American College of Radiology (ACR) dose index registry (2015), and national diagnostic reference levels from local CT dose registries in Switzerland (2010), the United Kingdom (2011), and Portugal (2015). RESULTS: Our local registry had a lower 75th percentile CTDIvol for all protocols than did the individual internationally sourced data. Compared with our study, the ACR dose index registry had higher 75th percentile CTDIvol values by 55% for head, 240% for thorax, 28% for abdomen-pelvis, 42% for thorax-abdomen-pelvis, 128% for pulmonary angiogram, 138% for renal-colic, and 58% for paranasal sinus studies. CONCLUSION: Our local registry had lower diagnostic reference level values than did existing European and North American diagnostic reference levels. Automated radiation-tracking software could be used to establish and update existing diagnostic reference levels because they are capable of analyzing large datasets meaningfully.
Authors: Denise Bos; Sebastian Zensen; Marcel K Opitz; Johannes Haubold; Kai Nassenstein; Sonja Kinner; Bernd Schweiger; Michael Forsting; Axel Wetter; Nika Guberina Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2022-04-05
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: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Yifei Wang; Philip Chu; Robert Chung; Andrew J Einstein; Jonathan Balcombe; Mary Cocker; Marcos Das; Bradley N Delman; Michael Flynn; Robert Gould; Ryan K Lee; Thomas Yellen-Nelson; Sebastian Schindera; Anthony Seibert; Jay Starkey; Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Axel Wetter; Joachim E Wildberger; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-01-02