The purpose of this study is to establish local diagnostic reference levels (LDRLs) for computed tomography (CT) procedures using cloud-based automated dose-tracking software.
The study includes the ...dose data obtained from a total of 104,272 examinations performed on adult patients (>18 years) using 8 CT scanners over 12 months. The protocols included in our study were as follows: head CT without contrast, cervical spine CT without contrast, neck CT with contrast, chest CT without contrast, abdomen-pelvis CT without contrast, lumbar spine CT without contrast, high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the chest, and coronary CT angiography (CTA). Dose data were collected using cloud-based automatic dose-tracking software. The 75
percentiles of the distributions of the median volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) values were used to determine the LDRLs for each protocol. The LDRLs were compared with national DRLs (NDRLs) and DRLs set in other countries. Inter-CT scanner variability, which is a measure of how well clinical practices are standardized, was determined for each protocol. Median values for each protocol were compared with the LDRLs for dose optimization in each CT scanner.
The LDRLs (for DLP and CTDIvol, respectively) were 839 mGy.cm and 41.2 mGy for head CT without contrast, 530.6 mGy.cm and 19.8 mGy for cervical spine CT without contrast, 431.9 mGy.cm and 15.5 mGy for neck CT with contrast, 364.8 mGy.cm and 9.3 mGy for chest CT without contrast, 588.9 mGy. cm and 11.2 mGy for abdomen-pelvis CT without contrast, 713 mGy.cm and 24.3 mGy for lumbar spine CT without contrast, 326 mGy.cm and 9.5 mGy for HRCT, and 642.3 mGy.cm and 33.4 mGy for coronary CTA. The LDRLs were comparable to or lower than NDRLs and DRLs set in other countries for most protocols. The comparisons revealed the need for immediate initiation of an optimization process for CT protocols with higher dose distributions. Furthermore, protocols with high inter-CT scanner variability revealed the need for standardization.
There is a need to update the NDRLs for CT protocols in Turkey. Until new NDRLs are established, local institutions in Turkey can initiate the optimization process by comparing their dose distributions to the LDRLs established in our study. Automated dose-tracking software can play an important role in establishing DRLs by facilitating the collection and analysis of large datasets.
Interventional Radiology (IR) deals with the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases through medically guided imaging. It provides unquestionable benefits to patients, but requires, in many ...cases, the use of high doses of ionizing radiation with a high impact on radiation risks to patients and to overall dose to the population. The International Commission on Radiological Protection introduced Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) as an effective tool to facilitate dose verification and optimize protection for patients undergoing radiological procedures. In addition, EURATOM Council Directive 2013/59 and its Italian transposition (Legislative Decree 101/2020) have reiterated that DRLs must be established for many common radiological diagnostic procedures to compare the radiation dose delivered for the same diagnostic examination. Within this framework, Istituto Superiore di Sanità-Italian National Institute of Health (ISS)-, in collaboration with relevant Italian Scientific Societies, has provided documents on DRLs in radiological practices such as diagnostic and IR and diagnostic nuclear medicine. These reference documents enable National Hospitals to comply national regulation. The implementation of DRLs in IR is a difficult task because of the wide distribution of doses to patients even within the same procedure. Some studies have revealed that the amount of radiation in IR procedures is influenced more by the complexity of the procedure than by the weight of the patient, so complexity should be included in the definition of DRLs. For this reason, ISS promoted a survey among a sample of Italian Centers update national DRL in IR procedures with related complexity factors than can be useful for other radiological centers and to standardize the DRLs values. In the present paper the procedural methodology developed by ISS and used for the survey will be illustrated.
Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable doses (ADs) provide guidance to optimise radiation doses for patients undergoing medical imaging procedures. This multi-centre study aimed to compare ...institutional DRLs (IDRLs) across hospitals, propose ADs and multi-centric DRLs (MCDRLs) for four common x-ray examinations in Sri Lanka, and assess the potential for dose reduction. A prospective cross-sectional study of 894 adult patients referred for abdomen anteroposterior (AP), kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) AP, lumbar spine AP, and lumbar spine lateral (LAT) x-ray examinations was conducted. Patient demographic information (age, sex, weight, BMI) and exposure parameters (tube voltage, tube current-exposure time product) were collected. Patient dose indicators were measured in terms of kerma-area product (P
) using a P
meter. IDRLs, ADs, and MCDRLs were calculated following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, with ADs and MCDRLs defined as the 50th and 75th percentiles of the median P
distributions, respectively. IDRL ranges varied considerably across hospitals: 1.42-2.42 Gy cm
for abdomen AP, 1.51-2.86 Gy cm
for KUB AP, 0.83-1.65 Gy cm
for lumbar spine AP, and 1.76-4.10 Gy cm
for lumbar spine LAT. The proposed ADs were 1.82 Gy cm
(abdomen AP), 2.03 Gy cm
(KUB AP), 1.27 Gy cm
(lumbar spine AP), and 2.21 Gy cm
(lumbar spine LAT). MCDRLs were 2.24 Gy cm
(abdomen AP), 2.40 Gy cm
(KUB AP), 1.43 Gy cm
(lumbar spine AP), and 2.38 Gy cm
(lumbar spine LAT). Substantial intra- and inter-hospital variations in P
were observed for all four examinations. Although ADs and MCDRLs in Sri Lanka were comparable to those in the existing literature, the identified intra- and inter-hospital variations underscore the need for dose reduction without compromising diagnostic information. Hospitals with high IDRLs are recommended to review and optimise their practices. These MCDRLs serve as preliminary national DRLs, guiding dose optimisation efforts by medical professionals and policymakers.
The purposes of this study were to analyze the radiation doses for pediatric abdominopelvic and chest CT examinations from university hospitals in Korea and to establish the local diagnostic ...reference levels (DRLs) based on the body weight and size.
At seven university hospitals in Korea, 2494 CT examinations of patients aged 15 years or younger (1625 abdominopelvic and 869 chest CT examinations) between January and December 2017 were analyzed in this study. CT scans were transferred to commercial automated dose management software for the analysis after being de-identified. DRLs were calculated after grouping the patients according to the body weight and effective diameter. DRLs were set at the 75th percentile of the distribution of each institution's typical values.
For body weights of 5, 15, 30, 50, and 80 kg, DRLs (volume CT dose index CTDI
) were 1.4, 2.2, 2.7, 4.0, and 4.7 mGy, respectively, for abdominopelvic CT and 1.2, 1.5, 2.3, 3.7, and 5.8 mGy, respectively, for chest CT. For effective diameters of < 13 cm, 14-16 cm, 17-20 cm, 21-24 cm, and > 24 cm, DRLs (size-specific dose estimates SSDE) were 4.1, 5.0, 5.7, 7.1, and 7.2 mGy, respectively, for abdominopelvic CT and 2.8, 4.6, 4.3, 5.3, and 7.5 mGy, respectively, for chest CT. SSDE was greater than CTDI
in all age groups. Overall, the local DRL was lower than DRLs in previously conducted dose surveys and other countries.
Our study set local DRLs in pediatric abdominopelvic and chest CT examinations for the body weight and size. Further research involving more facilities and CT examinations is required to develop national DRLs and update the current DRLs.
PET-computed tomography (PET/CT) is a hybrid imaging technique that combines anatomical and functional information; to investigate primary cancers, stage tumours, and track treatment response in ...paediatric oncology patients. However, there is debate in the literature about whether PET/CT could increase the risk of cancer in children, as the machine is utilizing two types of radiation, and paediatric patients have faster cell division and longer life expectancy. Therefore, it is essential to minimize radiation exposure by justifying and optimizing PET/CT examinations and ensure an acceptable image quality. Establishing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) is a crucial quantitative indicator and effective tool to optimize paediatric imaging procedures. This review aimed to distinguish and acknowledge variations among published DRLs for paediatric patients in PET/CT procedures. A search of relevant articles was conducted using databases, that is, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Medline, using the keywords: PET-computed tomography, computed tomography, PET, radiopharmaceutical, DRL, and their synonyms. Only English and full-text articles were included, with no limitations on the publication year. After the screening, four articles were selected, and the review reveals different DRL approaches for paediatric patients undergoing PET/CT, with primary variations observed in patient selection criteria, reporting of radiation dose values, and PET/CT equipment. The study suggests that future DRL methods for paediatric patients should prioritize data collection in accordance with international guidelines to better understand PET/CT dose discrepancies while also striving to optimize radiation doses without compromising the quality of PET/CT images.
Twelve years since the implementation of Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRL) process in France, the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection French Institute (IRSN) presents its latest analyses ...performed on the most recent national data.
Statutorily, each year, medical imaging departments must perform patient exposure evaluation from their clinical practice for at least 2 types of radiographic and computed tomography (CT) examinations freely chosen in the regulatory list. The samples of dosimetric data used for the evaluations must be sent to IRSN for national assessment using a dedicated and secured web portal. The analyses of collected data for radiography and CT allow IRSN to estimate the representativeness of current DRLs in terms of target practices and examinations, dosimetric quantities and numerical values. Technical data are transmitted, such as detector type in radiography or commissioning date of CT, and are included in some complementary analyses in order to evaluate their influence on patient exposure.
Since 2004 the involvement of professionals in the DRL process has highly increased in CT (about 80% in 2015) but remains quite weak in radiography (almost 30%). Analyses show some discordance between regulation references and clinical practice leading to clinical doses data which are 40% lower than DRLs in 2015. As a consequence, the list of examinations types and some numerical values should be updated in the regulation.
Focused analyses show a significant patient exposure reduction when digital radiography is used and when CT equipment is under five years old.
Based on these findings, IRSN recommends to update DRL regulation with current and relevant examination lists, dosimetric quantities and numerical values. In addition, this study shows that technology and generation of equipment, such as detector type in radiography or image reconstruction algorithm in CT, take an important place in the dose optimisation process, enabling significant patient exposure reduction when it is associated with protocols optimisation.
PDF
