Mark Worrall1, Mike Holubinka2, Glafkos Havariyoun3, Kirsten Hodgson4, Sue Edyvean5, John Holroyd5, Anne Davis2, Matthew Dunn6, Anna Gardiner7. 1. NHS Tayside, Dundee, United Kingdom. 2. Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, United Kingdom. 3. King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 4. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 5. Public Health England, London, United Kingdom. 6. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. 7. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present the results following a UK national patient dose audit of paediatric CT examinations, to propose updated UK national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and to analyse current practice to see if any recommendations can be made to assist with optimisation. METHODS: A UK national dose audit was undertaken in 2019 focussing on paediatric CT examinations of the head, chest, abdomen/pelvis and cervical spine using the methods proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The audit pro-forma contained mandatory fields, of which the post-examination dosimetry (volume CT dose index and dose-length product) and the patient weight (for body examinations) were the most important. RESULTS: Analysis of the data submitted indicates that it is appropriate to propose national DRLs for CT head examinations in the 0-<1, 1-<5, 5-<10 and 10-<15 year age ranges. This extends the number of age categories of national DRLs from those at present and revises the existing values downwards. For CT chest examinations, it is appropriate to propose national DRLs for the first time in the UK for the 5-<15, 15-<30, 30-<50 and 50-<80 kg weight ranges. There were insufficient data received to propose national DRLs for abdomen/pelvis or cervical spine examinations. Recommendations towards optimisation focus on the use of tube current (mA) modulation, iterative reconstruction and the selection of examination tube voltage (kVp). CONCLUSION: Updated UK national DRLs are proposed for paediatric CT examinations of the head and chest. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A national patient dose audit of paediatric CT examinations has led to the proposal of updated national DRLs.
OBJECTIVE: To present the results following a UK national patient dose audit of paediatric CT examinations, to propose updated UK national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and to analyse current practice to see if any recommendations can be made to assist with optimisation. METHODS: A UK national dose audit was undertaken in 2019 focussing on paediatric CT examinations of the head, chest, abdomen/pelvis and cervical spine using the methods proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The audit pro-forma contained mandatory fields, of which the post-examination dosimetry (volume CT dose index and dose-length product) and the patient weight (for body examinations) were the most important. RESULTS: Analysis of the data submitted indicates that it is appropriate to propose national DRLs for CT head examinations in the 0-<1, 1-<5, 5-<10 and 10-<15 year age ranges. This extends the number of age categories of national DRLs from those at present and revises the existing values downwards. For CT chest examinations, it is appropriate to propose national DRLs for the first time in the UK for the 5-<15, 15-<30, 30-<50 and 50-<80 kg weight ranges. There were insufficient data received to propose national DRLs for abdomen/pelvis or cervical spine examinations. Recommendations towards optimisation focus on the use of tube current (mA) modulation, iterative reconstruction and the selection of examination tube voltage (kVp). CONCLUSION: Updated UK national DRLs are proposed for paediatric CT examinations of the head and chest. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A national patient dose audit of paediatric CT examinations has led to the proposal of updated national DRLs.
Authors: J Vassileva; M Rehani; D Kostova-Lefterova; H M Al-Naemi; J S Al Suwaidi; D Arandjic; E H O Bashier; S Kodlulovich Renha; L El-Nachef; J G Aguilar; V Gershan; E Gershkevitsh; E Gruppetta; A Hustuc; A Jauhari; Mohammad Hassan Kharita; N Khelassi-Toutaoui; H R Khosravi; H Khoury; I Kralik; S Mahere; J Mazuoliene; P Mora; W Muhogora; P Muthuvelu; D Nikodemova; L Novak; A Pallewatte; D Pekarovič; M Shaaban; E Shelly; K Stepanyan; N Thelsy; P Visrutaratna; A Zaman Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Gareth R Iball; Natalie A Bebbington; Maria Burniston; Sue Edyvean; Louise Fraser; Peter Julyan; Nasreen Parkar; Tim Wood Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.690
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: Duminda Satharasinghe; Jeyasugiththan Jeyasingam; W M N M B Wanninayake; Aruna Pallewatte Journal: J Radiol Prot Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 1.394
Authors: Tim J Wood; Anne T Davis; James Earley; Sue Edyvean; Una Findlay; Rebecca Lindsay; Andrew Nisbet; Antony L Palmer; Rosaleen Plaistow; Matthew Williams Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Andrew N Primak; Natalie Braun; James Kofler; Lifeng Yu; Jodie Christner Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.303