OBJECTIVES: To examine radiation dose levels of CT-guided interventional procedures of chest, abdomen, spine and extremities on different CT-scanner generations at a large multicentre institute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1,219 CT-guided interventional biopsies of different organ regions ((A) abdomen (n=516), (B) chest (n=528), (C) spine (n=134) and (D) extremities (n=41)) on different CT-scanners ((I) SOMATOM-Definition-AS+, (II) Volume-Zoom, (III) Emotion6) were included from 2013-2016. Important CT-parameters and standard dose-descriptors were retrospectively examined. Additionally, effective dose and organ doses were calculated using Monte-Carlo simulation, following ICRP103. RESULTS: Overall, radiation doses for CT interventions are highly dependent on CT-scanner generation: the newer the CT scanner, the lower the radiation dose imparted to patients. Mean effective doses for each of four procedures on available scanners are: (A) (I) 9.3mSv versus (II) 13.9mSv (B) (I) 7.3mSv versus (III) 11.4mSv (C) (I) 6.3mSv versus (II) 7.4mSv (D) (I) 4.3mSv versus (II) 10.8mSv. Standard dose descriptors [standard deviation (SD); CT dose indexvol (CTDIvol); dose-length product (DLPbody); size-specific dose estimate (SSDE)] were also compared. CONCLUSION: Effective dose, organ doses and SSDE for various CT-guided interventional biopsies on different CT-scanner generations following recommendations of the ICRP103 are provided. New CT-scanner generations involve markedly lower radiation doses versus older devices. KEY POINTS: • Effective dose, organ dose and SSDE are provided for CT-guided interventional examinations. • These data allow identifying organs at risk of higher radiation dose. • Detailed knowledge of radiation dose may contribute to a better individual risk-stratification. • New CT-scanner generations involve markedly lower radiation doses compared to older devices.
OBJECTIVES: To examine radiation dose levels of CT-guided interventional procedures of chest, abdomen, spine and extremities on different CT-scanner generations at a large multicentre institute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1,219 CT-guided interventional biopsies of different organ regions ((A) abdomen (n=516), (B) chest (n=528), (C) spine (n=134) and (D) extremities (n=41)) on different CT-scanners ((I) SOMATOM-Definition-AS+, (II) Volume-Zoom, (III) Emotion6) were included from 2013-2016. Important CT-parameters and standard dose-descriptors were retrospectively examined. Additionally, effective dose and organ doses were calculated using Monte-Carlo simulation, following ICRP103. RESULTS: Overall, radiation doses for CT interventions are highly dependent on CT-scanner generation: the newer the CT scanner, the lower the radiation dose imparted to patients. Mean effective doses for each of four procedures on available scanners are: (A) (I) 9.3mSv versus (II) 13.9mSv (B) (I) 7.3mSv versus (III) 11.4mSv (C) (I) 6.3mSv versus (II) 7.4mSv (D) (I) 4.3mSv versus (II) 10.8mSv. Standard dose descriptors [standard deviation (SD); CT dose indexvol (CTDIvol); dose-length product (DLPbody); size-specific dose estimate (SSDE)] were also compared. CONCLUSION: Effective dose, organ doses and SSDE for various CT-guided interventional biopsies on different CT-scanner generations following recommendations of the ICRP103 are provided. New CT-scanner generations involve markedly lower radiation doses versus older devices. KEY POINTS: • Effective dose, organ dose and SSDE are provided for CT-guided interventional examinations. • These data allow identifying organs at risk of higher radiation dose. • Detailed knowledge of radiation dose may contribute to a better individual risk-stratification. • New CT-scanner generations involve markedly lower radiation doses compared to older devices.
Authors: Roman Kloeckner; Daniel Pinto dos Santos; Jens Schneider; Levent Kara; Christoph Dueber; Michael B Pitton Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Shuai Leng; Jodie A Christner; Stephanie K Carlson; Megan Jacobsen; Thomas J Vrieze; Thomas D Atwell; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Dianna D Cody; John M Boone; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nika Guberina; Michael Forsting; Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Kai Nassenstein; Jens Theysohn; Adrian Ringelstein; Axel Wetter Journal: Rofo Date: 2016-11-15
Authors: William Pao; Mark G Kris; A John Iafrate; Marc Ladanyi; Pasi A Jänne; Ignacio I Wistuba; Ryn Miake-Lye; Roy S Herbst; David P Carbone; Bruce E Johnson; Thomas J Lynch Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: D Oldenburg; N Guberina; B Stolte; K Kizina; E Stenzel; A Radbruch; C Kleinschnitz; T Hagenacker; M Forsting; C Mönninghoff Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Roberto F Casal; Mona Sarkiss; Aaron K Jones; John Stewart; Alda Tam; Horiana B Grosu; David E Ost; Carlos A Jimenez; George A Eapen Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Grzegorz Rosiak; Anna Lusakowska; Krzysztof Milczarek; Dariusz Konecki; Anna Fraczek; Olgierd Rowinski; Anna Kostera-Pruszczyk Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 2.804