A national survey on radiation dose in CT in The Netherlands

A J van der Molen, A Schilham, P Stoop, M Prokop, J Geleijns, A J van der Molen, A Schilham, P Stoop, M Prokop, J Geleijns

Abstract

Objectives: To assess radiation exposure due to CT in the Netherlands.

Methods: Twenty-one hospitals participated in a dose survey for the 21 most frequently used CT protocols. Hospitals completed a Web survey with detailed parameters for one patient per protocol, including the dose length product (DLP) from the scanner dose report. Only standard-sized patients (1.74 m and 77 kg and BMI 25.4 kg/m(2) ± 15 %) for each protocol and available scanner were considered. Effective dose (E) per protocol was estimated using ICRP-103-based E/DLP coefficients. Dose levels were compared to surveys from other countries and to diagnostic reference levels.

Results: Data of 186 patients (247 scan phases) from 14 hospitals and 19 scanners were used for final analysis of DLP and E. Effective doses varied from 0.2 mSv in sinus CT to 19.4 mSv for multiphase liver. The most frequent exams were brain (1.5 mSv), abdomen (8.0 mSv), and thorax-abdomen (11.5 mSv). These results are lower than in Germany and comparable to those in the UK, and are within reference levels. Results between hospitals varied, with per protocol minimum/maximum E ratios ranging from 1.1-5.4.

Conclusions: Compared to surrounding countries, CT in the Netherlands is associated with relatively low radiation doses in standard patients. Important differences remain between hospitals.

Main messages: • A national dose survey providing updated, detailed data for patient dose in the most frequently used CT protocols. • CT in the Netherlands is associated with relatively low individual radiation doses in standard patients compared to surrounding European countries. • Considerable differences remain between hospitals for the most frequently used CT protocols, indicating the need for further optimisation.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trends in the number of CT examinations 1991–2010
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Box plots of the effective dose (mSv) of the three most frequently used CT protocols

References

    1. Mettler FA, Jr, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, Gilley DB, Gray JE, Ibbott GS, et al. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources 1950–2007. Radiology. 2009;253:520–531. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2532082010.
    1. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler FA, Jr, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2071–2077. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440.
    1. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078–2086. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427.
    1. RIVM Information System Medical Exposures. Accessible at: . Accessed 20 Dec 2012
    1. Teeuwisse W, Geleijns J, Veldkamp W. An interhospital comparison of patient dose based on clinical indications. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1795–1805. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0473-1.
    1. Brix G, Nagel HD, Stamm G, Veit R, Lechel U, Griebel J, et al. Radiation exposure in multislice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of nationwide survey. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1979–1991. doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-1883-y.
    1. Galanski M, Nagel HD, Stamm G. Pediatric CT Exposure Practice in the Federal Republic of Germany. Results of a nationwide survey in 2005/2006. Accessible at: . Accessed 20 Dec 2012
    1. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Rad. 2006;79:968–980. doi: 10.1259/bjr/93277434.
    1. Hart D, Wall BF, Hillier MC, Shrimpton P. Frequency and collective dose for medical and dental X-ray examinations in the UK, 2008. Report HPA-CRCE-012. London, HPA, 2010. Accessible at: . Accessed 20 Dec 2012
    1. CBS Statline. Database of the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics. Available at: . Accessed 20 Dec 2012
    1. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA. Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology. 2010;257:158–166. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10100047.
    1. van der Molen AJ, Geleijns J. Overranging in multisection CT: quantification and relative contribution to dose—comparison of four 16-section CT scanners. Radiology. 2007;242:208–216. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2421051350.
    1. Schilham A, van der Molen AJ, Prokop M, de Jong HW. Overranging at multisection CT: an underestimated source of excess radiation exposure. Radiographics. 2010;30:1057–1067. doi: 10.1148/rg.304095167.
    1. Veldkamp WJH, Becht A, Bouwman RW, et al. Diagnostic reference levels in the Netherlands [in Dutch]. Delft: Nederlandse Commissie voor Stralingsdosimetrie, 2012. Available at: . Accessed 20 Dec 2012
    1. IRSN. Arrêté de 24 octobre 2011 relatif au niveaux de référence diagnostiques en radiologie et en medécine nucléaire. Available at: . Accessed 20 Dec 2012
    1. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz. Bekantmachung der aktualisierten diagnostischen Referenzwerten für diagnostische und interventionelle Röntgenuntersuchungen. Salzgitter, Bfs, 2010 Available at: . Accessed 20 Dec 2012
    1. Aldrich JE, Bilawich AM, Mayo JR. Radiation doses to patients receiving computed tomography examinations in British Columbia. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2006;57:79–85.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel