Literature DB >> 34751618

An Image Quality-informed Framework for CT Characterization.

Rebecca Smith-Bindman1, Sophronia Yu1, Yifei Wang1, Marc D Kohli1, Philip Chu1, Robert Chung1, Jason Luong1, Denise Bos1, Carly Stewart1, Biraj Bista1, Alejandro Alejandrez Cisneros1, Bradley Delman1, Andrew J Einstein1, Michael Flynn1, Patrick Romano1, J Anthony Seibert1, Antonio C Westphalen1, Andrew Bindman1.   

Abstract

Background Lack of standardization in CT protocol choice contributes to radiation dose variation. Purpose To create a framework to assess radiation doses within broad CT categories defined according to body region and clinical imaging indication and to cluster indications according to the dose required for sufficient image quality. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine metadata. CT examinations in adults from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019 from the University of California San Francisco International CT Dose Registry were grouped into 19 categories according to body region and required radiation dose levels. Five body regions had a single dose range (ie, extremities, neck, thoracolumbar spine, combined chest and abdomen, and combined thoracolumbar spine). Five additional regions were subdivided according to dose. Head, chest, cardiac, and abdomen each had low, routine, and high dose categories; combined head and neck had routine and high dose categories. For each category, the median and 75th percentile (ie, diagnostic reference level [DRL]) were determined for dose-length product, and the variation in dose within categories versus across categories was calculated and compared using an analysis of variance. Relative median and DRL (95% CI) doses comparing high dose versus low dose categories were calculated. Results Among 4.5 million examinations, the median and DRL doses varied approximately 10 times between categories compared with between indications within categories. For head, chest, abdomen, and cardiac (3 266 546 examinations [72%]), the relative median doses were higher in examinations assigned to the high dose categories than in examinations assigned to the low dose categories, suggesting the assignment of indications to the broad categories is valid (head, 3.4-fold higher [95% CI: 3.4, 3.5]; chest, 9.6 [95% CI: 9.3, 10.0]; abdomen, 2.4 [95% CI: 2.4, 2.5]; and cardiac, 18.1 [95% CI: 17.7, 18.6]). Results were similar for DRL doses (all P < .001). Conclusion Broad categories based on image quality requirements are a suitable framework for simplifying radiation dose assessment, according to expected variation between and within categories. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Mahesh in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34751618      PMCID: PMC8805663          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021210591

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  12 in total

Review 1.  Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge.

Authors:  Hedvig Hricak; David J Brenner; S James Adelstein; Donald P Frush; Eric J Hall; Roger W Howell; Cynthia H McCollough; Fred A Mettler; Mark S Pearce; Orhan H Suleiman; James H Thrall; Louis K Wagner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Computed Tomography Radiation Dose in Patients With Suspected Urolithiasis.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Michelle Moghadassi; Richard T Griffey; Carlos A Camargo; John Bailitz; Michael Beland; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Data-driven CT protocol review and management—experience from a large academic hospital.

Authors:  Da Zhang; Cristy A Savage; Xinhua Li; Bob Liu
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Adult CT Examinations.

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

5.  ACR-STR practice parameter for the performance and reporting of lung cancer screening thoracic computed tomography (CT): 2014 (Resolution 4).

Authors:  Ella A Kazerooni; John H M Austin; William C Black; Debra S Dyer; Todd R Hazelton; Ann N Leung; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Reginald F Munden; Sudhakar Pipavath
Journal:  J Thorac Imaging       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.000

6.  Ionizing radiation in abdominal CT: unindicated multiphase scans are an important source of medically unnecessary exposure.

Authors:  Kristie M Guite; J Louis Hinshaw; Frank N Ranallo; Mary J Lindstrom; Fred T Lee
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: a report from the American College of Radiology National Radiology Data Registry.

Authors:  Adam Lukasiewicz; Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield; Laura Coombs; Monica Ghita; Jeffrey Weinreb; Gowthaman Gunabushanam; Christopher L Moore
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-27       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Use of Water Equivalent Diameter for Calculating Patient Size and Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in CT: The Report of AAPM Task Group 220.

Authors:  Cynthia McCollough; Donovan M Bakalyar; Maryam Bostani; Samuel Brady; Kristen Boedeker; John M Boone; H Heather Chen-Mayer; Olav I Christianson; Shuai Leng; Baojun Li; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Roy A Nilsen; Mark P Supanich; Jia Wang
Journal:  AAPM Rep       Date:  2014-09

9.  Comparison of the Effectiveness of Single-Component and Multicomponent Interventions for Reducing Radiation Doses in Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Yifei Wang; Robert Chung; Naomi Lopez-Solano; Andrew J Einstein; Leif Solberg; Luisa F Cervantes; Thomas Yellen-Nelson; William Boswell; Bradley N Delman; Phuong-Anh Duong; Allen R Goode; Nima Kasraie; Ryan K Lee; Rebecca Neill; Anokh Pahwa; Pavlina Pike; Jodi Roehm; Sebastian Schindera; Jay Starkey; Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Cécile R L P N Jeukens; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  International variation in radiation dose for computed tomography examinations: prospective cohort study.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.