Radiation Dose Survey for Common Computed Tomography Exams: 2013 British Columbia Results

Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal - Tập 67 - Trang 88-95 - 2016
Yogesh Thakur1,2, Thorarin A. Bjarnason1,3,4, Patricia Baxter5, Mitch Griffith6, Kirk Eaton7
1Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
3Diagnostic Imaging Services, Interior Health, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
4Mathematics, Statistics, Physics & Computer Science, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
5Vancouver Island Health Authority, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
6Northern Health Authority, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
7The Ministry of Health, The Province of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Tóm tắt

In 2013 Health Canada conducted a national survey of computed tomography (CT) radiation usage. We analysed contributions from all 7 public health authorities in the province of British Columbia, which covered scanner age, number of slices, and common adult protocols (≥19 years: 70 ± 20 kg, head, chest, abdomen/pelvis, and trunk). Patient doses were recorded for common protocols. Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) was calculated using scanner data with >10 patient doses recorded for each protocol. Data was analysed based on image reconstruction (filtered backprojection vs iterative reconstruction [IR] vs IR available but not in use). Provincial response was 92%, with 59 of 64 CT data used for analysis. The average scanner age was 5.5 years old, with 39% of scanners installed between 2008-2013; 78.5% of scanners were multislice (>64 slices), and 44% of scanners had IR available. Overall British Columbia DRLs were: head = 1305, chest = 529, abdomen/pelvis = 819, and trunk = 1225. DRLs were consistent with Health Canada recommendations and other Canadian published values, but above international standards. For sites with IR available, less than 50% used this technology routinely for head, chest and trunk exams. Overall, use of IR reduced radiation usage between 11%-32% compared to filtered backprojection, while sites using IR vs IR available used 30%/43% less radiation for head/chest exams ( P < .05). No significant difference was observed for abdomen/pelvis exams ( P = .385). With the fast pace of CT technical advancement, DRLs should reflect the technology used, instead of just globally applied to anatomical regions. Federal guidelines should be updated at a higher frequency to reflect new technology. In addition, new technologies must be utilised to optimize image quality vs radiation usage.

Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/S0146-6453(00)89195-2 1991, Ann ICRP, 21, 1, 10.1016/0146-6453(91)90065-O 10.1016/j.carj.2011.12.009 10.1016/j.carj.2011.12.012 ShrimptonP.C. HillierM.C. LewisM.A. Doses From Computed Tomography (CT) Examinations in the UK - 2003 Review. NRPB-W67 2005 Health Protection Agency Oxon, England Aldrich J.E., 2006, Can Assoc Radiol J, 57, 79 10.1093/rpd/nct168 Association des physiciens et ingenieurs biomedicaux du Quebec, Etude des doses en tomodensitometrie 10.1148/radiol.2403050993 10.1148/radiol.10100297 10.1118/1.4901670 10.1118/1.4802730 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181b26c67 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.017 Guidance on the Establishment and Use of Diagnostic Reference Levels. IPEM Report 88 2004 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine York, England 10.2214/AJR.12.9928 X-Ray Equipment in Medical Diagnosis Part A: Recommended Safety Procedures for Installation and Use. Safety Code 20A 1999 Health Canada Ottawa, Canada
Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

Tập 67

88-95

Thông tin tác giả