Document Type : Original Research

Authors

1 MSc, Department of Radiology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 PhD, Department of Radiology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

3 PhD, Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

4 PhD, Medical Imaging Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

5 MD, Medical Imaging Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2105-1322

Abstract

Background: The diagnostic reference level (DRL) is measured with different methods in the common Computed tomography (CT) exams, but it has not been measured through the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) method in Iran, yet.
Objective: This study aimed to calculate the local DRL (LDRL) using the new quality control-based dose survey method (QC) and patients’ effective diameter (MQC) and compare them with a data collection method (DC) as well as local national DRLs (NDRL).
Material and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, LDRL, based on the third quartile of volumetric computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) values, was calculated for the four common CT examinations in four CT scan centers affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences by DC, QC and MQC methods. The CTDIvol of each patient for each CT exam calculated with three methods was compared with paired t-test. Also, the LDRL using MQC method was compared with other national DRL studies.
Results: There was a significant difference between the CTDIvol values calculated with MQC and QC in all four examinations (P <0.001). The LDRL based on CTDIvol obtained by the MQC method for head, sinus, chest, abdomen, and pelvis were (50, 18, 15, 19) mGy, respectively, and the calculated DLP values were also (735, 232, 519, 984) mGy.cm.
Conclusion: In MQC, LDRL based on CTDIvol was calculated with a mean difference percentage of (19.2 ± 11.6)% and (27.1 ± 8.1)% as compared to the QC and DC methods, respectively. This difference resulted from the use of the SSDE method and dose accuracy in the QC dose survey.

Keywords

  1. Bushberg JT, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
  2. Bolus NE. NCRP report 160 and what it means for medical imaging and nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med Technol. 2013;41(4):255-60. doi: 10.2967/jnmt.113.128728. PubMed PMID: 24179182.
  3. Mahdavi M, Rahimi S, Eghlidospoor M. Evaluation of some spiral and sequential computed tomography protocols of adults used in three hospitals in Shiraz, Iran with American College of Radiology and European Commission guidelines. Pol J Radiol. 2018;83:297-305. doi: 10.5114/pjr.2018.77023. PubMed PMID: 30627250. PubMed PMCID: PMC6323603.
  4. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078-86. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427. PubMed PMID: 20008690. PubMed PMCID: PMC4635397.
  5. Protection ICoR. ICRP Publication 105: Radiation protection in medicine. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1-63. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2008.08.001. PubMed PMID: 18762065.
  6. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, Chapter 1: Quality criteria for computed tomogrpahy. Report EUR 16262 EN; Brussels: EU publications; 1998.
  7. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for diagnostic reference levels in medical x-ray imaging. ACR; 2008. p. 799-804.
  8. Tsapaki V, Aldrich JE, Sharma R, et al. Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT—IAEA-coordinated research project. Radiology. 2006;240(3):828-34. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2403050993. PubMed PMID: 16837668.
  9. Charles MW. ICRP Publication 103: Recommendations of the ICRP. Oxford University Press; 2008.
  10. Protection R. 109: Guidance on diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for Medical Exposures. Luxembourg: European Communities; 1999.
  11. Parsi M, Sohrabi M, Mianji F, Paydar R. Determination of Examination-Specific Diagnostic Reference Level in Computed Tomography by A New Quality Control-Based Dose Survey Method. Health Phys. 2018;114(3):273-81. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000758. PubMed PMID: 29360705.
  12. Parsi M, Sohrabi M, Mianji F, Paydar R. A “quality-control-based correction method” for displayed dose indices on CT scanner consoles in patient dose surveys. Phys Med. 2017;38:88-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.05.054. PubMed PMID: 28610702.
  13. Medicine AAoPi. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Report of AAPM Task Group 204; AAPM; 2011.
  14. Vañó E, Miller D, Martin C, Rehani M, et al. ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(1):1-144. doi: 10.1177/0146645317717209. PubMed PMID: 29065694.
  15. McLean I. Quality assurance programme for computed tomography: diagnostic and therapy applications. IAEA Human Health; 2012.
  16. Brix G, Lechel U, Veit R, Truckenbrodt R, et al. Assessment of a theoretical formalism for dose estimation in CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(7):1275-84. doi: 10.1007/s00330-004-2267-7. PubMed PMID: 15034744.
  17. Foley SJ, McEntee MF, Rainford LA. Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1018):1390-7. doi: 10.1259/bjr/15839549. PubMed PMID: 22595497. PubMed PMCID: PMC3474022.
  18. Najafi M, Deevband MR, Ahmadi M, Kardan MR. Establishment of diagnostic reference levels for common multi-detector computed tomography examinations in Iran. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015;38(4):603-9. doi: 10.1007/s13246-015-0388-8. PubMed PMID: 26507898.
  19. Shrimpton P, Hillier M, Lewis M, Dunn M. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(948):968-80. doi: 10.1259/bjr/93277434. PubMed PMID: 17213302.
  20. Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, et al. US diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology. 2017;284(1):120-33. doi: 10.1148/radiol.201716191. PubMed PMID: 28221093.
  21. Sohrabi M, Parsi M, Mianji F. Determination of national diagnostic reference levels in computed tomography examinations of Iran by a new quality control-based dose survey method. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2017;179(3):206-15. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncx252. PubMed PMID: 29136248.
  22. Deevband MR, Ghorbani M, Eshraghi A, Salimi Y, et al. Patient effective dose estimation for routine computed tomography examinations in Iran. International Journal of Radiation Research. 2021;19(1):63-73. doi:10.29252/ijrr.19.1.63.
  23. Sohrabi M, Parsi M, Sina S. A New Dual-purpose Quality Control Dosimetry Protocol for Diagnostic Reference-level Determination in Computed Tomography. Health Phys. 2018;115(2):252-8. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000872. PubMed PMID: 29781838.
  24. McCollough C, Bakalyar DM, Bostani M, Brady S, et al. Use of water equivalent diameter for calculating patient size and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in CT: the report of AAPM Task Group 220. AAPM Rep. 2016;2014:6-23. PubMed PMID: 27546949. PubMed PMCID: PMC4991550.
  25. McCollough C, Cody D, Edyvean S, Rich G, et al. The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. Report of AAPM Task Group 23; AAPM; 2008.