CT Diagnostic Reference Levels Research Articles

CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications: results of a large-scale European survey.

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of defining diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) on a European basis for specific clinical indications (CIs), within the context of the European Clinical DRLs (EUCLID) European Commission project. A prospective, multicenter, industry-independent European study was performed to provide data on 10 CIs (stroke, chronic sinusitis, cervical spine trauma, pulmonary embolism, coronary calcium scoring, coronary angiography, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, colic/abdominal pain, and appendicitis) via an online survey that included information on patient clinical, technical, and dosimetric parameters. Data from at least 20 patients per CI were requested from each hospital. To establish DRLs, a methodology in line with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Report 135 good practice recommendations was followed. Data were collected from 19 hospitals in 14 European countries on 4299 adult patients and 10 CIs to determine DRLs. DRLs differ considerably between sites for the same CI. Differences were attributed mainly to technical protocol and variable number of phases/scan lengths. Stroke and hepatocellular carcinoma were the CIs with the highest DRLs. Coronary calcium scoring had the lowest DRL value. Comparison with published literature was limited, as there was scarce information on DRLs based on CI. This is the first study reporting on feasibility of establishing CT DRLs based on CI using European data. Resulting values will serve as a baseline for comparison with local radiological practice, national authorities when DRLs are set/updated, or as a guideline for local DRL establishment. • First study reporting on the feasibility of establishing CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indication using data collected across Europe. • Only one-fourth of the hospitals had CT machines less than 5 years old. • Large dose variations were observed among hospitals and CT protocols were quite different between hospitals.

Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels for CT Through a Provincial Medical Informatics Metadata Repository in Ontario.

To determine whether computed tomography radiation dose data could be captured electronically across hospitals to derive regional diagnostic reference levels for quality improvement. Data on consecutive computed tomography examinations from 8 hospitals were collected automatically in a central database (Repository) from April 2017 to September 2017. The most frequently performed examinations were used to determine the standard protocols for each hospital. Diagnostic reference levels across hospitals were derived using statistical distribution for 2 radiation dose metrics. These values were compared between hospitals, within and between hospitals by scanner and against national Health Canada achievable doses and diagnostic reference levels. Three master protocol groups, Head, Abdomen-Pelvis, and Chest-Abdomen-Pelvis, accounted for 43% of all valid studies (N = 40 277). For the Repository, 11 of 12 mean values and 75th percentile diagnostic reference levels were below the Health Canada mean and 75th percentile values, and one was the same as the Health Canada value. Mean radiation dose by protocol varied by as much as 97% between hospitals. There was no consistent pattern in the difference between mean doses between large and small hospitals. This electronic data acquisition process could be used to continually update achievable doses for frequently used computed tomography examinations in Ontario and eliminate the need for nationwide manual surveys. Results compared across institutions will allow hospitals to maintain achievable doses and lower patient exposure.

Towards establishment of diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indication in the state of Qatar

ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to: 1) evaluate patient radiation exposure in CT and 2) establish CT Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRL)s based on clinical indication (CI) in Qatar. Materials and MethodsPatient data for 13 CIs were collected using specially designed collection forms from the dose management software (DMS) of Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC), the main Qatar healthcare provider. The methodology described in the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Report 135 was followed to establish national clinical DRLs in terms of Volumetric Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDIvol) and total Dose Length Product (DLPt). Effective dose (Ef) was estimated by DMS using DLPt and appropriate conversion factors and was analyzed for comparison purposes. ResultsData were retrospectively collected for 896 adult patients undergoing CT examinations in 4 hospitals and 7 CT scanners. CT for Diffuse infiltrative lung disease imparted the lowest radiation in terms of CTDIvol (5 mGy), DLPt (181 mGy.cm) and Ef (3.6 mSv). Total body CT for severe trauma imparted the highest DLPt (3137 mGy.cm) and Ef (38.6 mSv) of all CIs with a CTDIvol of 15 mGy. Rounded Third quartile CTDIvol and DLPt values were defined as the Qatar CT clinical DRLs. Comparison was limited due to sparse international literature. When this was possible data were lower or comparable with other studies. ConclusionsThis is the first study reporting national clinical DRLs in Asia and second one internationally after UK. For accurate comparison between studies, systemized CI nomenclature must be followed by researchers.

CT diagnostic reference levels: are they appropriately computed?

To estimate the variability of CT diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) according to the methods used for computing collected data. Dose-length products (DLP) were collected by our national nuclear control agency from the 250 devices installed in 140 medical centers in the country. In 2015, the number of head, thorax, abdomen, and lumbar spine examinations collected in these centers ranged from approximately 20,000 to 42,000. The impact on DRLs of the number of devices considered, as well as the differences in descriptive statistics (mean vs. median DLP) or methods of pooling DLP data (all devices vs. all patients), was investigated. Variability in DRLs was investigated using a bootstrapping method as a function of the numbers of devices and examinations per device. As expected, DRLs derived from means were higher than those from medians, with substantial differences between device- and patient-related DRLs. Depending on the numbers of devices and DLP data per device, the variability ranged from 10 to 40% but was stabilized at a level of 10-20% if the number of devices was higher than 50 to 60, regardless of the number of DLP data per device. Number of devices and of DLP data per device, descriptive statistics, and pooling data influence DRLs. As differences in methods of computing survey data can artificially influence DRLs, harmonization among national authorities should be recommended. • Due to CT dose variability, that of DRLs is at least of 10%. • DRLs derived from medians are lower than from means and differ from those obtained by pooling all patient data. • Fifty to 60 devices should be sufficient for estimating national DRLs, regardless of the number of data collected per device.

Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in select procedures in South India

Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in select procedures in South India

SU-E-I-33: Establishment of CT Diagnostic Reference Levels in Province Nova Scotia

Purpose: To evaluate patient radiation dose from the most frequently performed CT examinations and to establish provincial diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) as a tool for protocol optimization. Methods: The study investigated the following CT examinations: head, chest, abdomen/pelvis, and chest/abdomen/pelvis (CAP). Dose data, volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP), were collected from 15 CT scanners installed during 2004–2014 in 11 hospital sites of Nova Scotia. All scanners had dose modulation options and multislice capability (16–128 detector rows). The sample for each protocol included 15 average size patients (70±20 kg). Provincial DRLs were calculated as the 75th percentile of patient dose distributions. The differences in dose between hospitals were evaluated with a single factor ANOVA statistical test. Generalized linear modeling was used to determine the factors associated with higher radiation dose. A sample of 36 abdominal studies performed on three different scanners was blinded and randomized for an assessment by an experienced radiologist who graded the imaging quality of anatomic structures. Results: Data for 900 patients were collected. The DRLs were proposed using CTDIvol (mGy) and DLP (mGy*cm) values for CT head (67 and 1049, respectively), chest (12 and 393), abdomen/pelvis (16 and 717), and CAP (14 and 1034). These DRLs were lower than the published national data except for the head CTDIvol. The differences between the means of the dose distributions from each scanner were statistically significant (p<0.05) for all examinations. A very weak correlation was found between the dose and the scanner age or the number of slices with Pearson’s correlation coefficients of 0.011–0.315. The blinded analysis of image quality demonstrated no clinically significant difference except for the noise category. Conclusion: Provincial DRLs were established for typical CT examinations. The variations in dose between the hospitals suggested a large potential for optimization of examinations. Radiology Research Foundation grant

A quantitative comparison of data evaluation methods to derive diagnostic reference levels for CT from a dosimetric survey: Correlation analysis compared to simple evaluation strategies

ObjectivesTo compare simple and sophisticated evaluation strategies for CT dosimetry surveys with focus on DRLs. MethodsBased on data from a nationwide Austrian CT dose survey, different evaluation strategies are compared. These were pooled data analysis, weight banding excluding data from patients with weights outside ±20 kg of the standard weights (70 and 75.6 kg representing the actual average weight), and a regression method estimating DLP probability distributions for the standard patient for each scanner before calculating quartiles. ResultsIn the abdomen and chest region, weight restriction (−9% and −4% around 70 and 75.6 kg, respectively, compared to pooled data analysis) and statistically weighting each scanner equally (−9%) have the largest effect on DRLs derived. However, the difference in 3rd quartiles calculated using weight restriction alone compared to regression analysis is relatively small (<1% for 70 ± 20 and −6% for 75.6 ± 20 kg, respectively, trunk region). In the head/neck region the effect of weight restriction is less than in for scans of the trunk (−1.3% and −0.2%, respectively); the most prominent changes resulted from excluding scanners with less than 10 patient cases (−5%), and equally weighting scanners rather than cases (−3%). ConclusionFor adult CT examinations (different to a paediatric survey), quite simple evaluation strategies yield results very comparable to those from sophisticated strategies.

Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland

To propose Irish CT diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) by collecting radiation doses for the most commonly performed CT examinations. A pilot study investigated the most frequent CT examinations. 40 CT sites were then asked to complete a survey booklet to allow the recording of CT parameters for each of 9 CT examinations during a 12-week period. Dose data [CT volume index (CTDI(vol)) and dose-length product (DLP)] on a minimum of 10 average-sized patients in each category were recorded to calculate a mean site CTDI(vol) and DLP value. The rounded 75th percentile was used to calculate a DRL for each site and the country by compiling all results. are compared with international DRL data. Results Data were collected for 3305 patients. 30 sites responded with data for 34 scanners, representing 54% of the national total. All equipment had multislice capability (2-128 slices). DRLs are proposed using CTDI(vol) (mGy) and DLP (mGy cm) for CT head (66/58 and 940, respectively), sinuses (16 and 210, respectively), cervical spine (19 and 420, respectively), thorax (9/11 and 390, respectively), high resolution CT (7 and 280, respectively), CT pulmonary angiography (13 and 430, respectively), multiphase abdomen (13 and 1120, respectively), routine abdomen/pelvis (12 and 600, respectively) and trunk examinations (10/12 and 850, respectively). These values are lower than current DRLs and comparable to other international studies. Wide variations in mean doses are noted across sites. Baseline figures for Irish CT DRLs are provided on the most frequently performed CT examinations. The variations in dose between CT departments as well as between identical scanners suggest a large potential for optimisation of examinations.

Radiation dose from CT scanning: can it be reduced?

Abstract CT has been used to save many patients’ lives and the demand for CT is still increasing. At the same time, there has been increasing concern of the probability of cancer induction by CT radiation. It is necessary for everyone involved in CT scanning, particularly physicians who have to communicate with patients when planning a CT scan, to have a basic knowledge of the CT radiation dose and its potential adverse effects. We have undertaken a systematic review of the literatures to document the radiation dose from CT, the lifetime cancer risk from CT exposure, CT dose parameters, the internationnal CT diagnostic reference levels, and the use and limitation of the CT effective dose. In addition, we conducted a brief survey of the use of CT scan in some university hospitals in Thailand and estimated current CT doses at these hospitals. Our review and survey suggests that CT scanning provides a great benefit in medicine but it also becomes the major source of X-ray exposure. Radiation doses from a CT scan are much higher than most conventional radiographic procedures. This raises concerns about the carcinogenic potentials. We encourage every CT unit to adhere to the International Guidelines of CT dose parameter references. Our preliminary survey from some university hospitals in Thailand revealed that CT radiation doses are within acceptable standard ranges. However, the justification for utilization of CT scans should also be required and monitored. The importance of adequate communication between attending physician and consulting radiologist is stressed.