28Feb 2017

RADIATION DOSE AND ASSOCIATED EXPOSURE PARAMETERS IN SELECTED MDCT SCANNERS IN MULTIPHASE SCAN OF ABDOMEN- PELVIC REGION: A CLINICAL STUDY.

  • Department of Radiography and Radiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, General Sir John Kotelawela Defence University, Sri Lanka.
  • Department of Radiology, Nawaloka Hospitals Ltd, Sri Lanka.
  • Mediquipment (pvt) ltd, Sri Lanka.
  • Department of Radiography & Radiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

We sought to estimate the radiation dose and associated exposure parameters in the multiphase abdomen - pelvic scan of Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT) studies in clinical practice. This was a retrospective cross sectional study describing radiation dose associated with main exposure parameters in diagnostic multiphase abdomen - pelvic scans performed on 152 consecutive patients by two different sixteen (16) slice CT scanners. Patient information, exposure parameters of CTDI (volume), DLP, kVp, mAs and pitch were recorded for every phases of abdomen- pelvic study from dose report of MDCT scanners. Patient age range from 18 to 87 years. Overall CTDI (volume) median was 63.8 (±10.4)mGy for multiphase abdominal-pelvic scan with scanner A while it was 35.4 (±15.6)mGy for scanner B. Effective dose for patients in multiphase abdomen - pelvic CT scan range from 8.2 mSv to 58 mSv. Median effective dose for patients, who underwent multiphase abdomen- pelvic scan with scanner A and B were 38.5 (± 8.2) mSv and 21.3 (± 8.6) mSv respectively. Median value of exposure parameters of mAs, kVp and pitch were 150 (±29.7), 130 (±15.3) and 1.3 (±0.1) respectively in scanner A. In scanner B; they were 60 (±14.5), 120(±0)and 1(±0). The median effective dose for patients between multiphase abdomen-pelvic scan of both MDCT, a significant difference (P<0.05) was observed.Multiphase abdomen – pelvic scan of clinical study shows significant variation of effective dose with reference level of phantom studies (8-14 mSv) and it is highly depend on type of vendors.

  1. Kristie M. Guite, J. Louis Hinshaw, Frank N. Ranallo, Mary J. Lindstrom, Fred T. Lee Jr, “Ionizing Radiation in Abdominal Computed Tomography: Unindicated Multiphase Scans are an Important Source of Medically Unnecessary Exposure,” J Am CollRadiol, 8(11): 756–761,2011.
  2. Brenner DJ , Hall EJ, “ computed tomography- an increasing source of radiation exposure,”Engl.J.Med.357,2277-2284,2007.
  3. SodicksonABaeyensPFAndriole KP , “ Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults,” Radiology, 251 (1) 175- 184,2009
  4. Einstein AJHenzlovaMJRajagopalan  S, “ Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography,” JAMA, 298 (3) 317- 323,2007..
  5. McCollough CH, Guimaraes, L and Fletcher JG; “ In defense of body CT,” AJR Am J Roentgenol ,193: 28–39,2009.
  6. Mith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, “Radiation Dose Associated With Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(22):2078–2086, 2009.
  7. Kamel IR, Choti MA, Horton KM, “Surgically staged focal liver lesions: accuracy and reproducibility of dual-phase helical CT for detection and characterization,” Radiology, 227:752-757, 2003.
  8. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, “Hepatocellular carcinoma: role of unenhanced and delayed phase multi-detector row helical CT in patients with cirrhosis,” Radiology, 234:460-467, 2005.
  9. Tschugunow A, Puesken M, Juergens KU, “Optimization of scan delay for routine abdominal 64-slice CT with body weight-adapted application of contrast material,” Rofo, 181:683-690, 2009.
  10. Yamashita Y, Komohara Y, Takahashi M, et al:, “Abdominal helical CT: evaluation of optimal doses of intravenous contrast material--a prospective randomized study,”Radiology, 216:718-723,2003.
  11. Mettler FA  Jr,  Wiest  PW,  Locken  JA,  Kelsey  CT  Scanning, “Pattern  of  Use  and Dose,”Journal of Radiological Protection,” 204:353 -359, 2000.
  1. Bauhs, J. A., Vrieze, T. J., Primak, A. N., Bruesewitz, M. R., &McCollough, C. H: CT Dosimetry, “ Comparison of Measurement Techniques and Devices,”. Radiographics, 28(1), 245-253. doi:10.1148/rg.281075024, 2008.
  2. McCollough, C. H., Leng, S., Yu, L., Cody, D.D, Boone J. M., &McNitt-Gray, M. F, “ CT Dose Index and Patient Dose: They are Not the Same Thing, EDITORIAL,” Radiology 259(2), 311-316,2001.
  3. Jessen KA, Panzer W, Shrimpton PC, “EUR 16262: European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,” 2000.
  4. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Report 60. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP 21:1/3, 1991.
  5. McCollough CH, Schueler BA, “Calculation of effective dose,” Med Phys 27:828?837, 2000.
  6. Wilting JE, Zwartkruis A, van Leeuwen MS, Timmer J, Kamphuis AG, Feldberg M, “A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: Individualized scan protocols.” EurRadiol 11:2627?2632,2001
  7. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Schmidt B, Westerman BL, Morgan HT, Saini S, “Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT,” Radiology 233:649?657,2004.
  8. Fuchs T, Kalender W:, “On the correlation of pixel noise, spatial resolution and dose in computed tomography: Theoretical prediction and verification by simulation and measurement,” PhysicaMedica 19:153?164, 2003.
  9. The measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT.report of a AAPM task group 23 of diagnostic imaging council CT commity. January 2008.
  10. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, “Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study,” Lancet 380:499–505, 2012.
  11. Kihong Son,1,2 Seungryong Cho,1a Jin Sung Kim,2a Youngyih Han,2 Sang Gyu Ju,2 Doo Ho Choi2, “ Evaluation of radiation dose to organs during kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography using Monte Carlo simulation,” journal of applied clinical medical physics, volume 15, Number 2, 2014..
  12. Bongartz G, Golding S, Jurik A, Leonardi M, van MeertenEvP, Geleijns J, Jessen KA, Panzer W, Shrimpton PC, Tosi G, “European Guidelines for Multislice Computed Tomography,” European Commission, 2004.
  13. International Commission on Radiation Protection. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. ICRP publication 87. Ann ICRP 2000; 33: 4.
  14. The radiographer, the official publication of society of radiological technologist Sri Lanka, Volume 12, ISSN 1391- 0795.
  15. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007;298(3):317-323
  16. Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions.EurRadiol. 2000;10(2):391-394
  17. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology. 2009;251(1):175-184.
  18. Ficaro EP, Zanzonico P, Stabin MG, et al. Variability in radiation dose estimates from nuclear and computed tomography diagnostic imaging. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Guidelines and Standards. 1, 2009

[P. Sathyathas, H. M. S. I. W Herath, T. Amalraj and U. J. M. A. L Jayasinghe. (2017); RADIATION DOSE AND ASSOCIATED EXPOSURE PARAMETERS IN SELECTED MDCT SCANNERS IN MULTIPHASE SCAN OF ABDOMEN- PELVIC REGION: A CLINICAL STUDY. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Feb). 2593-2600] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

P. Sathyathas
Department of Radiography & Radiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, General Sir John Kotelawela Defence University, Sri Lanka

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/3447      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/3447

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 35 | No. of Views: 163