Radiation Doses in Computed Tomography: Need for Optimization and Application of Dose Reference Levels in Nigeria
Article Sidebar
Views | PDF/EPUB Downloads:
17
/ 4
/ 0
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Establishment and use of “diagnostic reference levels” (DRLs) is essential for proper use and audit of ionizing radiation in medicine and other radiation applications. Nigeria does not yet have a guideline for DRL. The European Commission reference dose levels were applied to routine computed tomography (CT) examinations in Nigeria’s major hospitals.
Aim: To determine the dose of CT examinations at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria and provide a template for dose optimization.
Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from a GE Brightspeed multidetector CT scanner. The dose characteristics and estimates were derived from computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol), and dose length product (DLP) with the effective dose (E) calculated using software developed by ImPACTscan group with the National Radiological Protection Board–S250 conversion coefficients data for a random sampling of 1 per 10 typical CT patients.
Results: The mean values of CTDIvol in mGy were 73.5 ± 4.2 (head), 22.7 ± 6.7 (chest), 37.9 ± 5.6 (abdomen), 28.2 ± 8.3 (abdomen-pelvis), 41.4 ± 13.2 (cervical spine), and 40.1 ± 4.2 (lumbar spine) examinations. The corresponding mean values of DLP in mGy.cm were 1898, 1189, 1902, 2548, 1372, and 1563, respectively. The calculated E values in mSv for the above examinations were 2.8, 11.8, 22.5, 39.6, 4.6, and 29.0, respectively. All values consistently exceeded recommended ECRDLs except the CTDI vol for chest, cervical, and abdomen-pelvis examinations.
Conclusion: CT doses were higher than EC recommended guidelines necessitating a need for optimization of CT practice and the requirement for a CT dose survey in Nigeria.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
How to Cite
References
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.
2. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the general assembly Annex
C: Exposures from man‑made sources of radiation. Available from: htpp://www.unscear.org/unscear/publications/2000. [Last accessed on 2013 May 29 ].
3. Shrimpton PC, Edyvean S. CT scanner dosimetry. Br J Radiol 1998;71:1‑3.
4. Meinhold CB. Quantities and units in radiation protection. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995;60:343‑6.
5. He W, Marzolf SA, Tipnis S, Huda W. Scan region and organ doses in computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2012; 148: 444‑451.
6. Shope TB, Morgan TJ, Showalter CK, Pentlow KS, Rothenberg LN, White DR, et al. Radiation dosimetry survey of computed tomography systems from ten manufacturers. Br J Radiol 1982;55:60‑9.
7. Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Assessment of patient dose from computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1992;43:205.
8. Jessen KA, Panzer W, Shrimpton PC, Bongartz G, Gelejins J, Tosi G. et al. EUR 16262: European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000.
9. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 2006;79:968‑80.
10. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Ann ICRP 1991;21:1‑201.
11. Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: Dosimetric Aspects, NRPB R249. Chilton: NRPB; 1991.
12. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 3. Normalised organ doses calculated using Monte Carlo techniques, NRPB R250. Chilton: NRPB;1991.
13. Muhogora WE, Ahmed NA, Beganovic A, Benider A, Ciraj‑Bjelac O, Gershan V, et al. Patient doses in CT examinations in 18 countries: Initial results from international atomic energy agency projects. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009;136:118‑26.
14. Muhogora WE, Nyanda AM, Ngoye WM, Shao D. Radiation doses to patients during selected CT procedures at four hospitals in
Tanzania. Eur J Radiol 2006;57:461‑7.
15. Dougeni E, Chapple CL, Willis J, Panayiotakis G. Assessment of effective dose in paediatric CT examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011;147:147‑50.
16. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277‑84.
17. Ogbole GI, Ogunseyinde AO, Obajimi MO, Adeyinka OA. Experience with three‑dimensional computed tomographic angiography in Ibadan, Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 2010;13:187‑94.
18. Lewis MA, Edyvean S, Sassi SA, Kiremidjian H, Keat N, Britten AJ. Estimating Patient dose on current CT scanners: Results of the
ImPACT CT dose survey. London: ImPACT and Medical Physics‑St. George’s Hospital; 1997. Accessed November 2012 Available
from: http://www.impactscan.org/dosesurveysummary.htm. [Last accessed on 2013 Apr 20].
19. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Normalised organ doses for x‑ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques.
NRPB Report SR250. Didcot: NRPB; 1993.
20. Aweda MA, Arogundade RA. Patient dose reduction methods in computerized tomography procedures: A review. Int J Phys Sci
2007;2:1‑9.
21. Hidajat N, Mäurer J, Schröder RJ, Nunnemann A, Wolf M, Pauli K, et al. Relationships between physical dose quantities and patient
dose in CT.Br J Radiol 1999;72:556‑61.
22. Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF, Hobbs BB, Mettler FA Jr, Suleiman OH, et al. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: Application and impact. Radiology. 2005;235:354‑8.
23. European Commission. Radiation Protection 109. Guidance on diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for medical exposures.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1999.
24. Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT
examinations. Br J Radiol 2002;75:819‑30.
25. ChartsBin statistics collector team 2011, Body Mass Index (BMI) by Country, ChartsBin.com, viewed. Available from: http://www.
chartsbin.com/view/577. [Last accessed on 2006 Aug 26].