Celine Clerkin1, Sinead Brennan2, Laura M Mullaney1. 1. Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity Research Group, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, St Luke's Radiation Oncology Network at St Luke's Hospital, Dublin 6, Ireland.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this research is to establish if variation exists in the dose delivered for head and neck (HN) localisation computed tomography (CT) imaging in radiation therapy (RT); to propose a national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for this procedure and to make a comparison between the national DRL and a DRL of a European sample. BACKGROUND: CT has become an indispensable tool in radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning. It is a requirement of legislation in many countries that doses of ionising radiation for medical exposures be kept 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable'. There are currently no dose guidelines for RT localisation CT of the HN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All RT departments in Ireland and a sample of European departments were surveyed. Dose data on CT dose length product (DLP); dose index volume (CTDIvol); current time product; tube voltage and scan length was acquired for ten average-sized HN patients from each department. DRLs were proposed for DLP and CTDIvol using the rounded 75th percentile of the distribution of the means. RESULTS: 42% of Irish departments and one European department completed the survey. Significant variation was found in the mean DLP, CTDIvol and scan lengths across the Irish departments. The proposed Irish DRL is 882 mGy cm and 21 mGy and the European department DRL is 816 mGy cm and 21 mGy, for DLP and CTDIvol, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in doses used for HN RT localisation CT. DRLs have been proposed for comparison purposes with the aim of dose optimisation.
AIM: The aim of this research is to establish if variation exists in the dose delivered for head and neck (HN) localisation computed tomography (CT) imaging in radiation therapy (RT); to propose a national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for this procedure and to make a comparison between the national DRL and a DRL of a European sample. BACKGROUND: CT has become an indispensable tool in radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning. It is a requirement of legislation in many countries that doses of ionising radiation for medical exposures be kept 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable'. There are currently no dose guidelines for RT localisation CT of the HN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All RT departments in Ireland and a sample of European departments were surveyed. Dose data on CT dose length product (DLP); dose index volume (CTDIvol); current time product; tube voltage and scan length was acquired for ten average-sized HN patients from each department. DRLs were proposed for DLP and CTDIvol using the rounded 75th percentile of the distribution of the means. RESULTS: 42% of Irish departments and one European department completed the survey. Significant variation was found in the mean DLP, CTDIvol and scan lengths across the Irish departments. The proposed Irish DRL is 882 mGy cm and 21 mGy and the European department DRL is 816 mGy cm and 21 mGy, for DLP and CTDIvol, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in doses used for HN RT localisation CT. DRLs have been proposed for comparison purposes with the aim of dose optimisation.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT localisation; Diagnostic reference levels; Head and neck; Radiotherapy
Authors: A Aroua; A Besançon; I Buchillier-Decka; P Trueb; J-F Valley; F R Verdun; W Zeller Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2004-07-20 Impact factor: 0.972
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: 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
Authors: E Cardis; M Vrijheid; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; F Bermann; G Cowper; J Fix; C Hacker; B Heinmiller; M Marshall; I Thierry-Chef; D Utterback; Y-O Ahn; E Amoros; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; J Bernar; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklöf; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R R Habib; K Holan; H Hyvonen; A Kerekes; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Martuzzi; A Mastauskas; A Monnet; M Moser; M S Pearce; D B Richardson; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Aaron Sodickson; Pieter F Baeyens; Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Richard D Nawfel; Richard Hanson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105