OBJECTIVES: The increased frequency of pediatric CT examinations and the high radiosensitivity of children entail the need to determine DRLs and optimize CT protocols. The aim of the study was twofold. Firstly, to establish pediatric LDRLs according to age and weight for the most common types of CT examinations at the largest children's hospital in Greece. Secondly, to compare LDRLs with European DRLs. METHODS: A total of 756 pediatric patients who underwent head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations were included. Patients were categorized into age groups according to the hospital's protocols. All CT examinations were performed using iterative reconstruction algorithm and AEC. LDRLs were determined in terms of 75th percentile of CTDIvol and DLP. Values of LDRLs were subsequently regrouped into weight categories and compared with European DRLs. RESULTS: Gathering all age groups for head CT examinations and all weight groups for body CT examinations, LDRLs were ranged from (22-68, 2-5, 2-10) mGy in terms of CTDIvol; (317-786, 22-168, 58-425) mGy.cm in terms of DLP per acquisition and (324-838, 42-265, 85-498) mGy.cm in terms of total DLP for head, chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations, respectively. CONCLUSION: CTDI LDRLs were comparable to European DRLs for head and either comparable or lower than European DRLs for body CT examinations. DLP LDRLs were higher than European DRLs for head and lower for body CT examinations. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Age- and weight-based LDRLs for pediatric CT examinations were established for the largest children's hospital in Greece. Further investigations across the country are required for the establishment of national pediatric DRLs in Greece.
OBJECTIVES: The increased frequency of pediatric CT examinations and the high radiosensitivity of children entail the need to determine DRLs and optimize CT protocols. The aim of the study was twofold. Firstly, to establish pediatric LDRLs according to age and weight for the most common types of CT examinations at the largest children's hospital in Greece. Secondly, to compare LDRLs with European DRLs. METHODS: A total of 756 pediatric patients who underwent head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations were included. Patients were categorized into age groups according to the hospital's protocols. All CT examinations were performed using iterative reconstruction algorithm and AEC. LDRLs were determined in terms of 75th percentile of CTDIvol and DLP. Values of LDRLs were subsequently regrouped into weight categories and compared with European DRLs. RESULTS: Gathering all age groups for head CT examinations and all weight groups for body CT examinations, LDRLs were ranged from (22-68, 2-5, 2-10) mGy in terms of CTDIvol; (317-786, 22-168, 58-425) mGy.cm in terms of DLP per acquisition and (324-838, 42-265, 85-498) mGy.cm in terms of total DLP for head, chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations, respectively. CONCLUSION: CTDI LDRLs were comparable to European DRLs for head and either comparable or lower than European DRLs for body CT examinations. DLP LDRLs were higher than European DRLs for head and lower for body CT examinations. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Age- and weight-based LDRLs for pediatric CT examinations were established for the largest children's hospital in Greece. Further investigations across the country are required for the establishment of national pediatric DRLs in Greece.
Authors: H Järvinen; R Seuri; M Kortesniemi; A Lajunen; E Hallinen; P Savikurki-Heikkilä; P Laarne; M Perhomaa; E Tyrväinen Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: E Vañó; D L Miller; C J Martin; M M Rehani; K Kang; M Rosenstein; P Ortiz-López; S Mattsson; R Padovani; A Rogers Journal: Ann ICRP Date: 2017-10
Authors: M-O Bernier; J-L Rehel; H J Brisse; X Wu-Zhou; S Caer-Lorho; S Jacob; J F Chateil; B Aubert; D Laurier Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: David B Larson; Lara W Johnson; Beverly M Schnell; Marilyn J Goske; Shelia R Salisbury; Howard P Forman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: N Journy; J-L Rehel; H Ducou Le Pointe; C Lee; H Brisse; J-F Chateil; S Caer-Lorho; D Laurier; M-O Bernier Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 7.640