Hugues Brat1, Federica Zanca2,3, Stéphane Montandon4, Damien Racine5, Benoit Rizk6, Eric Meicher6, Dominique Fournier6. 1. Institut de Radiologie de Sion, Groupe 3R, Sion, Switzerland. hugues.brat@groupe3r.ch. 2. GE Healthcare, Buc, France. 3. Palindromo Consulting, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Philips Healthcare, Gland, Switzerland. 5. Institute of Radiation Physics (IRA), Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 6. Institut de Radiologie de Sion, Groupe 3R, Sion, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare institutional dose levels based on clinical indication and BMI class to anatomy-based national DRLs (NDRLs) in chest and abdomen CT examinations and to assess local clinical diagnostic reference levels (LCDRLs). METHODS: From February 2017 to June 2018, after protocol optimization according to clinical indication and body mass index (BMI) class (< 25; ≥ 25), 5310 abdomen and 1058 chest CT series were collected from 5 CT scanners in a Swiss multicenter group. Clinical indication-based institutional dose levels were compared to the Swiss anatomy-based NDRLs. Statistical significance was assessed (p < 0.05). LCDRLs were calculated as the third quartile of the median dose values for each CT scanner. RESULTS: For chest examinations, dose metrics based on clinical indication were always below P75 NDRL for CTDIvol (range 3.9-6.4 vs. 7.0 mGy) and DLP (164.0-211.2 vs. 250 mGycm) in all BMI classes except for DLP in BMI ≥ 25 (248.8-255.4 vs. 250.0 mGycm). For abdomen examinations, they were significantly lower or not different than P50 NDRLs for all BMI classes (3.8-9.0 vs. 10.0 mGy and 192.9-446.8 vs. 470mGycm). The estimated LCDRLs show a drop in CTDIvol (21% for chest and 32% for abdomen, on average) with respect to current DRLs. When considering BMI stratification, the largest LCDRL difference within the same clinical indication is for renal tumor (4.6 mGy for BMI < 25 vs. 10.0 mGy for BMI ≥ 25; - 117%). CONCLUSION: The results suggest the necessity of estimating clinical indication-based DRLs, especially for abdomen examinations. Stratifying per BMI class allows further optimization of the CT doses. KEY POINTS: • Our data show that clinical indication-based DRLs might be more appropriate than anatomy-based DRLs and might help in reducing large variations in dose levels for the same type of examinations. • Stratifying the data per patient-size subgroups (non-overweight, overweight) allows a better optimization of CT doses and therefore the possibility to set LCDRLs based on BMI class. • Institutions who are fostering continuous dose optimization and LDRLs should consider defining protocols based on clinical indication and BMI group, to achieve ALARA.
OBJECTIVES: To compare institutional dose levels based on clinical indication and BMI class to anatomy-based national DRLs (NDRLs) in chest and abdomen CT examinations and to assess local clinical diagnostic reference levels (LCDRLs). METHODS: From February 2017 to June 2018, after protocol optimization according to clinical indication and body mass index (BMI) class (< 25; ≥ 25), 5310 abdomen and 1058 chest CT series were collected from 5 CT scanners in a Swiss multicenter group. Clinical indication-based institutional dose levels were compared to the Swiss anatomy-based NDRLs. Statistical significance was assessed (p < 0.05). LCDRLs were calculated as the third quartile of the median dose values for each CT scanner. RESULTS: For chest examinations, dose metrics based on clinical indication were always below P75 NDRL for CTDIvol (range 3.9-6.4 vs. 7.0 mGy) and DLP (164.0-211.2 vs. 250 mGycm) in all BMI classes except for DLP in BMI ≥ 25 (248.8-255.4 vs. 250.0 mGycm). For abdomen examinations, they were significantly lower or not different than P50 NDRLs for all BMI classes (3.8-9.0 vs. 10.0 mGy and 192.9-446.8 vs. 470mGycm). The estimated LCDRLs show a drop in CTDIvol (21% for chest and 32% for abdomen, on average) with respect to current DRLs. When considering BMI stratification, the largest LCDRL difference within the same clinical indication is for renal tumor (4.6 mGy for BMI < 25 vs. 10.0 mGy for BMI ≥ 25; - 117%). CONCLUSION: The results suggest the necessity of estimating clinical indication-based DRLs, especially for abdomen examinations. Stratifying per BMI class allows further optimization of the CT doses. KEY POINTS: • Our data show that clinical indication-based DRLs might be more appropriate than anatomy-based DRLs and might help in reducing large variations in dose levels for the same type of examinations. • Stratifying the data per patient-size subgroups (non-overweight, overweight) allows a better optimization of CT doses and therefore the possibility to set LCDRLs based on BMI class. • Institutions who are fostering continuous dose optimization and LDRLs should consider defining protocols based on clinical indication and BMI group, to achieve ALARA.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical protocols; Health care; Multidetector computed tomography; Radiometry
Authors: Kalpana M Kanal; Priscilla F Butler; Debapriya Sengupta; Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield; Laura P Coombs; Richard L Morin Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yan Klosterkemper; Elisabeth Appel; Christoph Thomas; Oliver T Bethge; Joel Aissa; Patric Kröpil; Gerald Antoch; Johannes Boos Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Anaïs Viry; Christoph Aberle; Thiago Lima; Reto Treier; Sebastian T Schindera; Francis R Verdun; Damien Racine Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 5.315