Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 11, pp 1816–1821

A pediatric CT dose and risk estimator

Technical Innovation

Abstract

We present a web-based pediatric CT dose tool that estimates effective dose based on dose length product, patient age and region of body scanned. The tool also provides an estimate of additional lifetime risk of cancer from CT exams. These estimations are based on the interpolation of factors from published methods. The calculator serves as an educational tool that can be used by radiologists and clinicians to better understand CT dose and its associated risks.

Keywords

CT dosimetry Radiation risk CT usage Pediatric CT 

References

  1. 1.
    Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Frush DP et al (2009) Image gently vendor summit: working together for better estimates of pediatric radiation dose from CT. AJR 192:1169–1175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shrimpton PC (1997) Reference doses for computed tomography. Radiol Prot Bull 193:16–19Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR (2008) Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. Radiology 248:995–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA et al (2005) Doses from computed tomography examinations in the UK—2003 review. NRPB-W67Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shrimpton PC, Jones DG (1993) Normalised organ doses for X ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques and a mathematical anthropomorphic phantom. Radiat Prot Dosim 49:241–243Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC et al (2002) Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. Br J Radiol 75:819–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) (2007) The measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT: report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. Report no. 96Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2010) Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting international commission on radiological protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR 194:881–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mettler FA, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M et al (2008) Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 95:502–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shrimpton PC, Wall BF (2009) Effective dose and dose-length product in CT. Radiology 250:604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation—BEIR VII Phase 2. The National Academies, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M et al (2007) The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res 167:396–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brenner D, Sachs R (2006) Estimating radiation-induced cancer risks at very low doses: rationale for using a linear no-threshold approach. Radiat Environ Biophys 44:253–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nussbaum RH (1998) The linear no-threshold dose-effect relation: is it relevant to radiation protection regulation? Med Phys 25:291–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    (2005) ICRP 99: Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. Annals of the ICRP 35:1–142Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    (2009) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov). DevCan database: ‘SEER 17 Incidence and Mortality, 2000–2006, with Kaposi Sarcoma and Mesothelioma.’ National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2009
  19. 19.
    Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S (2007) Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 298:317–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomas KE, Wang B (2008) Age-specific effective doses for pediatric MSCT examinations at a large children’s hospital using DLP conversion coefficients: a simple estimation method. Pediatr Radiol 38:645–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Einstein AJ, Elliston CD, Arai AE et al (2010) Radiation dose from single-heartbeat coronary CT angiography performed with a 320-detector row volume scanner. Radiology 254:698–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cristy M, Eckerman KF (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. ORNL/TM-8381/V1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strauss KPL, KJ ZD et al (2010) Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children’s hospital. AJR 194:1611–1619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McNitt-Gray MF (2002) AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 22:1541–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The ‘Image Gently’ campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 38:265–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySeattle Children’s HospitalSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations