European Radiology

, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 1795–1805 | Cite as

An inter-hospital comparison of patient dose based on clinical indications

Physics

Abstract

Patient dose is usually estimated for a single radiographic projection or computed tomography (CT) series. In this study, patient dose was calculated for predefined clinical indications (24 radiography, 11 CT). Members of the radiology staff of each of 11 hospitals were trained in dose measurement and calculation techniques. Based on clinical indications participants decided on imaging protocols and calculated cumulative effective dose for a complete examination. Effective dose ranged from <1 μSv to 0.6 mSv for examinations with radiographs and from 0.2 to 12 mSv for CT scans. Differences in the imaging protocols contributedd to a substantial variation in patient dose. For mammography, average glandular dose (AGD) was estimated for 32-, 53- and 90-mm compressed breast thicknesses, with a median value of 0.74, 1.74 and 3.40 mGy, respectively. The results presented here demonstrate that a pragmatic choice of dosimetry methods enables local staff to estimate effective dose. The inclusion of imaging protocols in the dose surveys provided a broader view on the variations in patient dose between hospitals.

Keywords

Average glandular dose Computed tomography Clinical indication Dosimetry Effective dose 

References

  1. 1.
    European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/43/Euratom. On health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, Besluit Stralenbescherming, 16 juli 2001, Stb. 2001, 397Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    CT dose calculator ImpactDose, VAMP GmbH, Erlangen Germany. Internet: http://www.vamp-gmbh.de/software/impactdose.php
  4. 4.
    ImPACT (Imaging Performance Assessment of CT) group. CTdosimetry.xls spreadsheet can be downloaded from http://www.impactscan.org/ctdosimetry.htm. In this study, version 0.99e was used
  5. 5.
    Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Servomaa A (1997) PCXMC: A PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations, report STUK-A139, Helsinki: Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety. For information and demo version. see http://www.stuk.fi/pcxmc/
  6. 6.
    Radiography dose calculator: WinODS, RTI Electronics AB, Mölndal, Sweden. Internet: http://www.rti.se/products_accessories/software.htm
  7. 7.
    ICRP publication 60 (1991) 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Length and weight of the Dutch population, 1998/2000. Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg/HeerlenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission (1999) EUR 16262 – European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Becket JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grøn P, Olerud HM, Einarsson G, Leitz W, Servomaa A, Schoultz BW, Hjardemaal O (2000) A nordic survey of patient doses in diagnostic radiology. Eur Radiol 10:1988–1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leitz W, Jönsson H (2001) Patientdoser från röntgenundersökningar I Sverge, sammanställning av resultaten från sjukvårdens rapportering (1999). SSI Rapport 2001–2001. Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hart D, Wall BF (2002) Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental X-ray examinations. National Radiological Protection Board publication NRPB-W4, ChiltonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2005) Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK – 2003 review. National Radiological Protection Board publication NRPB-W67, ChiltonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson J, Smith PHS, Workman A (2000) Application of draft European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey. Br J Radiol 73:43–50, JanPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Origgi D, Vigorito S, Villa G, Bellomi M, Tosi G (2006) Survey of computed tomography techniques and absorbed dose in Italian hospitals: a comparison between two methods to estimate the dose-length product and the effective dose and to verify fulfilment of the diagnostic reference levels. Eur Radiol 16:227–237, JanPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brix G, Nagel HD, Stamm G, Veit R, Lechel U, Griebel J, Galanski M (2003) Radiation exposure in multi-slice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey. Eur Radiol 13:1979–1991, AugPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruger RL, Schueler BA (2001) A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 28:1449–1454, JulPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geleijns J, Broerse JJ, Shaw MP, Schultz FW, Teeuwisse W, van Unnik JG, Zoetelief J (1997) Patient dose due to colon examination: dose assessment and results from a survey in The Netherlands. Radiology 204:553–559, AugPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Geleijns J, Broerse JJ, Chandie Shaw MP, Schultz FW, Teeuwisse W, Van Unnik JG, Zoetelief J (1998) A comparison of patient dose for examinations of the upper gastrointestinal tract at 11 conventional and digital X-ray units in The Netherlands. Br J Radiol 71:745–753PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations