Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1

Radiation doses from head, neck, chest and abdominal CT examinations: an institutional dose report

Pages
147–151
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION Overall radiation dose parameters obtained in this study points out the need for optimization of head CT examinations in our institution.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE We aimed to obtain typical values for head, neck, chest, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations from routine patients in 2018, and to review our data with national and international diagnostic reference levels (DRLs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS Single-phase head, neck, chest, and abdominal CT scans of adults performed in 64-slice CT in 2018 were included in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION Overall radiation dose parameters obtained in this study points out the need for optimization of head CT examinations in our institution.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

PURPOSE We aimed to obtain typical values for head, neck, chest, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations from routine patients in 2018, and to review our data with national and international diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). METHODS Single-phase head, neck, chest, and abdominal CT scans of adults performed in 64-slice CT in 2018 were included in this study. Radiation dose parameters of CT scans were obtained from the picture archiving and communication system of our hospital. Volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) values were recorded. Effective dose (ED) and scan length was calculated. A 16 cm diameter phantom is referenced for head CT, and 32 cm diameter phantom is referenced for neck, chest, and abdominal CT. Descriptive statistics of the variables were given according to the normality testing. RESULTS Median CTDIvol value was 53 mGy for the head, 13.1 mGy for the neck, 8.3 mGy for the chest, and 8.6 mGy for the abdomen. Median DLP value was 988 mGy.cm for the head, 299 mGy.cm for the neck, 314 mGy.cm for the chest, and 457 mGy.cm for the abdomen. Median ED value was 2.07 mSv for the head, 1.76 mSv for the neck, 4.4 mSv for the chest, and 6.8 mSv for the abdomen. Considering national DRLs, median CTDIvol values of head, chest, and abdomen were lower, whereas median DLP and ED values of head and chest were higher. For the abdomen, the median DLP and ED values were lower. CONCLUSION Overall radiation dose parameters obtained in this study points out the need for optimization of head CT examinations in our institution.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATLI, E., UYANIK, S., ÖĞÜŞLÜ, U., CENKERİ, H. Ç., YILMAZ, B., GÜMÜŞ, B. (2021). Radiation doses from head, neck, chest and abdominal CT examinations: an institutional dose report. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1, 147–151. https://ajindex.com/articles/418476

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: Estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004
  2. 345– 351. [Crossref] 2. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012
  3. 499–505. [Crossref] 3. Schauer DA, Linton OW. National council on radiation protection and measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology 2009
  4. 293–296. [Crossref] 4. IAEA. International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. International Atomic Energy Agency, 1996. 5. Santos J, Foley S, Paulo G, McEntee MF, Rainford L. The establishment of computed tomography diagnostic reference levels in Portugal. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2014
  5. 307–317. [Crossref] 6. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991
  6. 1–201. [Crossref] 7. Radiation and your patient: A guide for medical practitioners. Ann ICRP 2001
  7. 5–31. [Crossref] 8. Atac GK, Parmaksiz A, Inal T, et al. Patient doses from CT examinations in Turkey. Diagn Interv Radiol 2015
  8. 428–434. [Crossref] 9. Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: Consequences of adopting international commission on radiological protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010
  9. 881–889. [Crossref] 10. Commission E. Diagnostic reference levels in thirty-six European countries. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2014. 11. Smith-Bindman R, Moghadassi M, Wilson N, et al. Radiation doses in consecutive CT examinations from five University of California Medical Centers. Radiology 2015
  10. 134–141. [Crossref] 12. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK—2011 review. Public Health England Report PHE-CRCE013. Chilton, UK: Public Health England. 2014. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/doses-from-computedtomography-ct-examinations-in-the-uk. 13. Pantos I, Thalassinou S, Argentos S, Kelekis NL, Panayiotakis G, Efstathopoulos EP. Adult patient radiation doses from non-cardiac CT examinations: A review of published results. Br J Radiol 2011
  11. 293–303. [Crossref] 14. Badawy MK, Galea M, Mong KS, U P. Computed tomography overexposure as a consequence of extended sca