Establishment of national diagnostic dose reference levels (DRLs) for routine computed tomography examinations in Jordan

• Autorzy: Radaideh Khaldoon , Al-Radaideh Ali , Ramli Ramzun Maizan , Saleh Abdallah

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/pjmpe-2023-0003

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: Dose reference levels (DRLs) are used as indicators as well as guidance for dose optimization and to ensure justification of appropriate dose for a given clinical indication. The main aims of this study were to establish local DRLs for each CT imaging protocol as a reference point to evaluate the radiation dose indices and to compare our DRLs with those established in other countries and against the internationally reported guidelines. Materials and methods: 2000 CT dose reports of different adult imaging protocols from January 2021 until April 2022 were collected retrospectively at different hospitals in Jordan. Data were collected from CT scans that were performed using different types and models of CT scanners and included four adult non-enhanced, helical CT imaging protocols; Head, Chest, Abdomen-Pelvis, and Chest-Abdomen-Pelvis. Results: The average doses of CTDI_vol, DLP, and effective dose were (65.11 mGy, 1232.71 mGy·cm, 2.83 mSv) for the head scan, (16.6 mGy, 586.6 mGy·cm, 8.21 mSv) for the chest scan, (17.91 mGy, 929.9 mGy·cm, 13.9 mSv) for the abdomen-pelvis scan, and (19.3 mGy, 1152 mGy·cm, 17.25 mSv) for the chest-abdomen-pelvis scan. In comparison with results from different international studies, DLP values measured in the present study were lower for the chest-abdomen-pelvis and abdomen-pelvis CT scans, and higher for the head CT and chest CT scans. Conclusions: It is very important that each country establishes its own DRLs and compares them with those reported by other countries, especially the developed ones. It is also important that these levels are regularly updated.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

computed tomography; dose reference levels; DRLs; dose length product; CT dose index-volume; effective dose

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Fizyki Medycznej ; De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 29, Iss. 1
• Strony: 26--34
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 52 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Radaideh Khaldoon

• Department of Radiographic Technology, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Isra University, 11622 Amman, Jordan

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2021-7480

autor

Al-Radaideh Ali

• Department of Medical Imaging, The Hashemite University, Jordan

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6287-6716

autor

Ramli Ramzun Maizan

• School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia

autor

Saleh Abdallah

• School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia

Bibliografia

• 1. Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, et al. ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Annals of the ICRP. 2017;46(1):1-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645317717209
• 2. Rothenberg LN, Pentlow KS. CT dosimetry and radiation safety. In: Goldman LW, Fowlkes JB, eds. Medical CT and Ultrasound: Current Technology and Applications. Madison, Wis: Advanced Medical Publishing; 1995:519-553
• 3. Schauer DA, Linton OW. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology. 2009;253(2):293-296. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2532090494
• 4. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3. Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: International basic safety standards. General safety requirements Part 3 (Spanish Edition). 2016.
• 5. Santos J, etFoley S, Paulo G, et al. The establishment of computed tomography diagnostic reference levels in Portugal. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2014;158(3):307-317. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nct226
• 6. de Gonzalez AB, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. The Lancet. 2004;363(9406):345-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15433-0
• 7. Héliou R, Normandeau L, Beaudoin G. Towards dose reduction in CT: patient radiation dose assessment for CT examinations at university health center in Canada and comparison with national diagnostic reference levels. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2012;148(2):202-210. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncr024
• 8. Vassileva J, Rehani M. Diagnostic reference levels. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(1):W1-W3. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.12794
• 9. AAPM Report No. 96. The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. Report of AAPM task group 23: CT Dosimetry. 2008. https://doi.org/10.37206/97
• 10. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. NRPB-W67 doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK–2003 review. National Radiation Protection Board.2005.
• 11. Olugbenga A. An Overview of International Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: Basic Safety Standards. 2020. http://elibrary.nnra.gov.ng/jspui/handle/123456789/488
• 12. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: Revised December 1954. Annals of the ICRP/ICRP Publication. 1959;OS_1(1):iii-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-27402880014-6
• 13. Larsson CM. Waste disposal and the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection–Challenges for radioecology and environmental radiation protection. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2009;100(12):1053-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2009.07.003
• 14. Boal TJ, Pinak M. Dose limits to the lens of the eye: International Basic Safety Standards and related guidance. Annals of the ICRP. 2015. 44(1_suppl):112-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645314562321
• 15. Rehani M, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Vañó E , et al. ICRP Publication 117. Radiological protection in fluoroscopically guided procedures performed outside the imaging department. Annals of the ICRP. 2010;40(6):1-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2012.03.001
• 16. Valentin J, Radiation and your patient: A guide for medical practitioners: ICRP Supporting Guidance 2: Approved by ICRP Committee 3 in September 2001. Annals of the ICRP. 2001;31(4):1-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6453(02)00007-6
• 17. McCollough CH, Chen GH, Kalender W, et al. Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. Radiology. 2012;264(2):567-580. https://doi.org//10.1148/radiol.12112265
• 18. Brady SL, Mirro AE, Moore BM, Kaufman RA. How to appropriately calculate effective dose for CT using either size-specific dose estimates or dose-length product. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(5):953-958. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.13317
• 19. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography (EUR 16262 EN). 2000. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d229c9e1-a967-49de-b169-59ee68605f1a
• 20. Salama DH, Vassileva J, Mahdalyet G, el al. Establishing national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for computed tomography in Egypt. Physica Medica. 2017;39:16-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.05.050
• 21. Suliman II, Khamis HM, Ombada TH, et al. Radiation exposure during paediatric CT in Sudan: CT dose, organ and effective doses. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2015;167(4):513-518. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncu321
• 22. Kaste SC, Brady SL, Yee B, et al. Is routine pelvic surveillance imaging necessary in patients with Wilms tumor? Cancer. 2013;119(1):182-188. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcncr.27687
• 23. Pantos I, Thalassinou S, Argentos S, et al. Adult patient radiation doses from non-cardiac CT examinations: a review of published results. British Journal of Radiology. 2011;84(1000):293-303. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/69070614
• 24. Razali MASM, Ahmad MZ, Roslee MAAM, Osman ND. Establishment of institutional diagnostic reference level for CT imaging associated with multiple anatomical regions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019:012067. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1248/1/012067
• 25. Treier R, Aroua A, Verdunet FR, et al. Patient doses in CT examinations in Switzerland: implementation of national diagnostic reference levels. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2010;142(2-4):244-254. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq279
• 26. Roch P, Aubert B, French diagnostic reference levels in diagnostic radiology, computed tomography and nuclear medicine: 2004–2008 review. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2013;154(1):52-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncs152
• 27. European Commission. Radiation Protection N° 180. Diagnostic Reference Levels in Thirty-six European Countries. Part 2/2. Diagnostic reference levels in thirty-six European countries. 2014. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/nuclear-energy/radiation-protection/scientific-seminars-and-publications/radiation-protection-series-publications_en#ref-180
• 28. Abuzaid MM, Elshami W, Tekin HO, et al. Computed tomography radiation doses for common computed tomography examinations: a nationwide dose survey in United Arab Emirates. Insights into Imaging. 2020;11(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00891-6
• 29. Aroua A, Samara ET, Bochudet FO, al. Exposure of the Swiss population to computed tomography. BMC medical imaging 2013.13(1):1-5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-13-22
• 30. Le Coultre R, Bize J, Champendal M, et al. Exposure of the Swiss population by radiodiagnostics: 2013 review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016;169(1-4):221-224. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv462
• 31. Hayton A, Wallace A, Marks P, et al. Australian diagnostic reference levels for multi detector computed tomography. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2013.36(1):19-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-013-0180-6
• 32. Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, et al. US diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology. 2017;284(1):120-133. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161911
• 33. Kanal KM, Butler PF, Chatfield MB, et al. US diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 pediatric CT examinations. Radiology. 2022;302(1):164-174. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021211241
• 34. Wardlaw G, Martel N. Sci-Thur PM – Colourful Interactions: Highlights 07: Canadian computed tomography survey: national diagnostic reference levels. Med Phys. 2016;43:4932-4933. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4961767
• 35. Kumamaru KK, Kogure Y, Suzuki M, et al. A strategy to optimize radiation exposure for non-contrast head CT: comparison with the Japanese diagnostic reference levels. Japanese Journal of Radiology. 2016;34(6):451-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0545-3
• 36. Simantirakis, G, Hourdakis CJ, Economides S, et al. Diagnostic reference levels and patient doses in computed tomography examinations in Greece. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2015;163(3):319-324. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncu182
• 37. Foley SJ, McEntee MF, Rainford LA. Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland. British Journal of Radiology. 2012;85(1018):1390-1397. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/15839549
• 38. Khoramian D, Sistani S, Hejazi P. Establishment of diagnostic reference levels arising from common CT examinations in Semnan County, Iran. Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering. 2019;25(1):51-55. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjmpe-2019-0008
• 39. Ataç GK, Parmaksız A, İnalet T, al. Patient doses from CT examinations in Turkey. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2015;21(5):428.-434. https://doi.org/10.5152%2Fdir.2015.14306
• 40. Atlı E, Uyanık SA, Öğüşlüet U, et al. Radiation doses from head, neck, chest and abdominal CT examinations: an institutional dose report. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2021;27(1):147-151. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2020.19560
• 41. Kharita M, Khazzam S. Survey of patient dose in computed tomography in Syria 2009. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2010;141(2):149-161. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq155
• 42. Liang CR, Chen PXH, Kapuret J, et al. Establishment of institutional diagnostic reference level for computed tomography with automated dose‐tracking software. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2017;64(2):82-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.210
• 43. Vilar-Palop J, Vilar J, Hernández-Aguado I, et al. Updated effective doses in radiology. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2016;36(4):975-990. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/4/975
• 44. Smith-Bindman R, Moghadassi M, Wilson N, et al. Radiation doses in consecutive CT examinations from five University of California Medical Centers. Radiology. 2015;277(1):134-141. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142728
• 45. Vilar-Palop J, Vilar J, Hernández-Aguado I, et al. Updated effective doses in radiology. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2016;36(4):975-990. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/4/975
• 46. Saeed MK, Alzoubi AS, Al-QahtaniJ. Regional survey of image quality and radiation dose in computed tomography examinations in Saudi Arabia. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2014;37(2):279-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-014-0256-y
• 47. Hasan N, Rizk C, Babikir E. National diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications and patient size for adults’ computed tomography in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2022:197(3):110147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2022.110147
• 48. McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Topics in CT: Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics. 2002;22(6):1541-1553. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.226025128
• 49. Taylor S, van Muylem A, Howarth N, et al. CT dose survey in adults: what sample size for what precision? European Radiology. 2017;27(1):365-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4333-3
• 50. Lee KL, Beveridge T, Sanagou M, et al. Updated Australian diagnostic reference levels for adult CT. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2020;67(1):5-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.372
• 51. Karim MKA, Hashim S, Bradley DA, et al. Radiation doses from computed tomography practice in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2016;121:69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.12.020
• 52. Muhammad NA, Abdul Karim MK, Abu Hassanet H, et al. Diagnostic reference level of radiation dose and image quality among paediatric CT examinations in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Diagnostics. 2020;10(8):591. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080591

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).