Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 645–656 | Cite as

Age-specific effective doses for pediatric MSCT examinations at a large children’s hospital using DLP conversion coefficients: a simple estimation method

  • Karen E. ThomasEmail author
  • Bo Wang
Original Article

Abstract

Background

There is a need for an easily accessible method for effective dose estimation in pediatric CT.

Objective

To estimate effective doses for a variety of pediatric neurological and body CT examinations in five age groups using recently published age- and region-specific dose length product (DLP) to effective dose conversion coefficients.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review was performed of 1,431 consecutive CT scans over a 12-week period using age- and weight-adjusted CT protocols. Age- and region-specific DLP to effective dose conversion coefficients were applied to console-displayed DLP data.

Results

Effective dose estimates for single-phase head CT scans in neonatal, and 1-, 5-, 10- and 15-year-old age groups were 4.2, 3.6, 2.4, 2.0 and 1.4 mSv, respectively. For abdomen/pelvis CT scans the corresponding effective doses were 13.1, 11.1, 8.4, 8.9 and 5.9 mSv. The range of pediatric CT effective doses is wide, from ultralow dose protocols (<1 mSv) to extended-coverage body examinations (10–15 mSv).

Conclusion

Age- and region-specific pediatric DLP to effective dose conversion coefficients provide an accessible and user-friendly method for estimating pediatric CT effective doses that is available to radiologists working without medical physics support.

Keywords

Pediatric MSCT DLP conversion coefficients Radiation dose Children 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank Guila BenDavid and her team of CT technologists for their diligent recording of DLP data, which made this study possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Linton OW, Mettler FA (2003) National conference on dose reduction in CT with particular emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR 181:321–329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackwell CD, Gorelick M, Holmes JF et al (2007) Pediatric head trauma: changes in use of computed tomography in emergency departments in the United States over time. Ann Emerg Med 49:320–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2002) Public health notification: reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients. Pediatr Radiol 32:314–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W et al; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Radiology (2007) Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 120:677–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCullough CH, Schueler BA (2000) Educational treatise: calculation of effective dose. Med Phys 27:828–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huda W, Vance A (2007) Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. AJR 188:540–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICRP (1991) 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (publication no. 60). Pergamon, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Almen A, Mattsson S (1996) On the calculation of effective dose to children and adolescents. J Radiol Prot 16:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K et al (2006) Estimation of effective doses to adult and pediatric patients from multislice computed tomography: a method based on energy imparted. Med Phys 33:3846–3856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CT Safety & Efficacy: A Broad Perspective.2004 CT quality criteria. Appendix A - MSCT dosimetry, guidelines on radiation dose to the patient. Available at http://www.msct.eu/CT_Quality_Criteria.htm. Accessed 16 Jan 2008
  11. 11.
    European Commission (1999) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels. Available at http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/. Accessed 16 Jan 2008
  12. 12.
    Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC et al (1997) Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. Br J Radiol 75:819–830Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huda W, Atherton JV, Ware DE et al (1997) An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. Radiology 203:417–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huda W, Gkanatsios NA (1997) Effective dose and energy imparted in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 24:1311–1316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shrimpton PC (2004) Assessment of patient dose in CT. NRPB-PE/1/2004. NRPB, Chilton. Also published as Appendix C of the 2004 CT Quality Criteria (MSCT, 2004) at http://www.msct.eu/CT_Quality_Criteria.htm
  16. 16.
    Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA et al (2005) Doses from computed tomography examinations in the UK - 2003 review. NRPB - W67, NRPB Publications. Available at http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/index.htm
  17. 17.
    Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA et al (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nickoloff E (2002) Current adult and pediatric CT doses. Pediatr Radiol 32:250–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huda W (2002) Effective doses to adult and pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol 32:272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shrimpton PC, Wall BF (2000) Reference doses for paediatric computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 90:249–252Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chapple C-L, Willis S, Frame J (2002) Effective dose in paediatric computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 47:107–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    US Food and Drug Administration (2007) What are the radiation risks from CT? Available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2008
  24. 24.
    Picano E (2004) Sustainability of medical imaging. BMJ 328:578–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Muller N (2003) Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleishner Society. Radiology 228:15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P et al (2005) Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 15:334–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M et al (2006) Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 113:1305–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zankl M, Panzer, Drexler G (1993) Tomographic anthropomorphic models. Part II: Organ doses from computed tomographic examinations in paediatric radiology. GSF-Bericht 30/93. GSF, MunichGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hollingsworth C, Frush DP, Cross M et al (2003) Helical CT of the body: a survey of techniques used for pediatric patients. AJR 180:401–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McLean D, Malitz N, Lewis S (2003) Survey of effective dose levels from typical paediatric protocols. Australas Radiol 47:135–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi TT, Goodman PC et al (2007) Effective dose determination using an anthropomorphic phantom and metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor technology for clinical adult body multidetector array computed tomography protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:544–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pages J, Buls N, Osteaux M (2003) CT doses in children: a multicentre study. Br J Radiol 76:803–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic ImagingThe Hospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations