Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 623–631 | Cite as

IAEA survey of paediatric computed tomography practice in 40 countries in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa: procedures and protocols

  • Jenia Vassileva
  • Madan M. Rehani
  • Kimberly Applegate
  • Nada A. Ahmed
  • Humoud Al-Dhuhli
  • Huda M. Al-Naemi
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objective

To survey procedures and protocols in paediatric computed tomography (CT) in 40 less resourced countries.

Methods

Under a project of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 146 CT facilities in 40 countries of Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America responded to an electronic survey of CT technology, exposure parameters, CT protocols and doses.

Results

Modern MDCT systems are available in 77 % of the facilities surveyed with dedicated paediatric CT protocols available in 94 %. However, protocols for some age groups were unavailable in around 50 % of the facilities surveyed. Indication-based protocols were used in 57 % of facilities. Estimates of radiation dose using CTDI or DLP from standard CT protocols demonstrated wide variation up to a factor of 100. CTDIvol values for the head and chest were between two and five times those for an adult at some sites. Sedation and use of shielding were frequently reported; immobilisation was not. Records of exposure factors were kept at 49 % of sites.

Conclusion

There is significant potential for improvement in CT practice and protocol use for children in less resourced countries. Dose estimates for young children varied widely. This survey provides critical baseline data for ongoing quality improvement efforts by the IAEA.

Key Points

Paediatric computed tomography (CT) practice was audited in 40 less resourced countries.

This audit revealed widespread (up to 100 times) variation in radiation dose.

Specific CT protocols for certain age groups were frequently (ca. 50 %) unavailable.

This survey demonstrates significant potential for improvement in paediatric CT practice.

Multinational networking is an effective mechanism for quality improvement.

Keywords

Computed tomography Paediatric CT Patient doses Radiation protection, CT protocols 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was undertaken as part of technical cooperation projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The authors wish to thank their respective governments for their nomination to participate in the study and acknowledge the contribution of members of the team for their cooperation and understanding, in particular: Zoran Trajkovski, Jasminka Joseva, N. Naman, C. Kalambo, A. Pilly, Shady Khazzam, Julius Ziliukas, Edis Ciuksys, Inga Cibulskaite, Hashim Al Awadhi, Noirin M. Neligan, Jacek Janaczek, Fatima Al Kaabi, Wadha M. Al-Shamsi, Mohammad Abu Srour, Alfan S. Al Ameri, Sara Booz, Juan Manuel Herrera Moya, Dean Pekarovič, Ethen Jamnik, Dimitrij Kuhelj, Andrias Hambardzumyan, Marianna Harutunyan, Lusine Hakobyan, Fredy J. Gomez, Leila Sadri, Marianna Frik-Amelin, Shaid Kamal, Dr. Muzafar, Samia Saadi, Fouzia Meddad, Ahmed Merad, Rima Dib, Ali Rahanjam, Mohd Ahmed Elhallag, Laila Musabeh Mohad Almuhairi, Suresh Kamath, Tatan Saefuddin, Kukuh Nurcahyo, Damayanti Sekarsari, Olivera Ciraj-Bjelac, Djordje Lazarevic, Marcos Ely de Andrade, Nada Hassan, Einas Hamed, Ali Abdelrazeg and Alejandro Nader.

Co-authors in alphabetical order*

Jamila Salem Al Suwaidi (UAE), Danijela Arandjic (Serbia), Adnan Beganovic (Bosnia&Herzegovina), Tony Benavente (Peru), Tadeusz Bieganski (Poland), Simone Dias (Brazil), Leila El-Nachef (Lebanon), Dario Faj (Croatia), Mirtha E. Gamarra-Sánchez (Paraguay), Juan Garcia Aguilar (Mexico), Vesna Gershan (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Eduard Gershkevitsh (Estonia), Edward Gruppetta (Malta), Alexandru Hustuc (Republic of Moldova), Sonja Ivanovic (Montenegro), Arif Jauhari (Indonesia), Mohammad Hassan Kharita (Syria), Siarhei Kharuzhyk (Belarus), Nadia Khelassi-Toutaoui (Algeria), Hamid Reza Khosravi (Iran), Desislava Kostova-Lefterova (Bulgaria), Ivana Kralik (Croatia), Lantao Liu (China), Jolanta Mazuoliene (Lithuania), Patricia Mora (Costa Rica), Wilbroad Muhogora (Tanzania), Pirunthavany Muthuvelu (Malaysia), Denisa Nikodemova (Slovakia), Leos Novak (Czech Republic), Aruna S. Pallewatte (Sri Lanka), Mohamed Shaaban (Kuwait), Esti Shelly (Israel), Karapet Stepanyan (Armenia), Eu-Leong Harvey J. Teo (Singapore), Naw Thelsy (Myanmar), Pannee Visrutaratna (Thailand), Areesha Zaman (Pakistan), Dejan Zontar (Slovenia)

*Except first author, the coordinator of the study (placed as second author), and a consultant (at third place), all other authors’ names have been arranged alphabetically by their family name. Only one principal contributor from each participating team in a country region has been included as an author, although many members were involved in the study.

Supplementary material

330_2012_2639_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 20.1 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (2001) Managing patient dose in computed tomography, ICRP Publication 87. Annals of the ICRP: 30(4). Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brenner D (2010) Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health 25:63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers LF (2001) Taking care of children. Check out the parameters used for helical CT (Editorial). AJR Am J Radiol 176:287Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton-Gorges SL (2003) Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 228:352–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, O’Daniel JC, Wagner LK, Eftekhari F (2004) Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Radiol 182:849–859Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), ICRP Publication 102. Annals of the ICRP: 37(1). Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vock P, Wolf R (2007) Dose optimization and reduction in CT of children. In: Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomography. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalender WA, Buchenau S, Deak P et al (2008) Technical approaches to the optimisation of CT. Med Phys 24:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nievelstein RA, van Dam IM, van der Molen AJ (2010) Multidetector CT in children: current concepts and dose reduction strategies. Pediatr Radiol 40:1324–1344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC et al (2010) Image gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:868–873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh S, Kalra MK, Thrall JH, Mahesh M (2012) Pointers for optimizing radiation dose in pediatric CT protocols. J Am Coll Radiol 9:77–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rehani M, Tsapaki V (2011) Impact of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) actions on radiation protection of patients in many countries. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 147:34–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muhogora WE, Ahmed NA, Alsuwaidi JS et al (2010) Paediatric CT examinations in 19 developing countries: frequency and radiation dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 140:49–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vassileva J, Rehani M, Al-Dhuhli H et al (2012) IAEA survey of pediatric CT practice in 40 countries in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa: part 1. Frequency and appropriateness. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:1021–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shrimpton PC, Wall BF (2000) Reference doses for paediatric computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 90:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2005) Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK-2003 review; NRPB-W67. UK Health Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galanski M, Nagel HD, Stamm G (2007) Paediatric CT exposure practice in the federal republic of Germany: results of a nationwide survey in 2005–2006. Medizinische Hochschule, HannoverGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verdun FR, Gutierrez D, Vader JP et al (2008) CT radiation dose in children: a survey to establish age-based diagnostic reference levels in Switzerland. Eur Radiol 18:1980–1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brisse HJ, Aubert B (2009) CT exposure from pediatric MDCT: results from the 2007–2008 SFIPP/ISRN survey. J Radiol 90:207–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh S, Kalra MK, Moore MA et al (2009) Dose reduction and compliance with pediatric CT protocols adapted to patient size, clinical indication, and number of prior studies. Radiology 252:200–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huda W, Sterzik A, Tipnis S (2010) X-ray beam filtration, dosimetry phantom size and CT patient dose conversion factors. Phys Med Biol 55:551–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huda W, Vance A (2007) Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. AJR Am J Radiol 188:540–546Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y et al (2005) Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 237:905–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paul J, Abada HT, Sigal-Cinqualbre A (2004) Should Low-kilovoltage chest CT protocols be the rule for pediatric patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C (2004) Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 233:515–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, Chen X, Paul JF (2004) Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 234:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arch ME, Frush DP (2008) Pediatric body MDCT: a 5-year follow-up survey of scanning parameters used by pediatric radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:611–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/EURATOM. Off J L-180 of 09.07.1997, 22Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rehani M, Frush D (2010) Tracking radiation exposure of patients. Lancet 376:754–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rehani M, Frush D (2011) Patient exposure tracking: the IAEA smart card project. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 147:314–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP et al (2009) Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 251:175–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenia Vassileva
    • 1
  • Madan M. Rehani
    • 2
  • Kimberly Applegate
    • 3
  • Nada A. Ahmed
    • 4
  • Humoud Al-Dhuhli
    • 5
  • Huda M. Al-Naemi
    • 6
  1. 1.National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation ProtectionSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.International Atomic Energy AgencyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Emory RadiologyAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Sudan Atomic Energy CommissionKhartoumSudan
  5. 5.Sultan Qaboos UniversityAl KhodOman
  6. 6.Hamad Medical Corp. Hamad General HospitalDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations