Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp 3929–3935 | Cite as

Radiation exposure during CT-guided biopsies: recent CT machines provide markedly lower doses

  • Nika GuberinaEmail author
  • Michael Forsting
  • Adrian Ringelstein
  • Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam
  • Kai Nassenstein
  • Jens Theysohn
  • Axel Wetter
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives

To examine radiation dose levels of CT-guided interventional procedures of chest, abdomen, spine and extremities on different CT-scanner generations at a large multicentre institute.

Materials and methods

1,219 CT-guided interventional biopsies of different organ regions ((A) abdomen (n=516), (B) chest (n=528), (C) spine (n=134) and (D) extremities (n=41)) on different CT-scanners ((I) SOMATOM-Definition-AS+, (II) Volume-Zoom, (III) Emotion6) were included from 2013–2016. Important CT-parameters and standard dose-descriptors were retrospectively examined. Additionally, effective dose and organ doses were calculated using Monte-Carlo simulation, following ICRP103.

Results

Overall, radiation doses for CT interventions are highly dependent on CT-scanner generation: the newer the CT scanner, the lower the radiation dose imparted to patients. Mean effective doses for each of four procedures on available scanners are: (A) (I) 9.3mSv versus (II) 13.9mSv (B) (I) 7.3mSv versus (III) 11.4mSv (C) (I) 6.3mSv versus (II) 7.4mSv (D) (I) 4.3mSv versus (II) 10.8mSv. Standard dose descriptors [standard deviation (SD); CT dose indexvol (CTDIvol); dose-length product (DLPbody); size-specific dose estimate (SSDE)] were also compared.

Conclusion

Effective dose, organ doses and SSDE for various CT-guided interventional biopsies on different CT-scanner generations following recommendations of the ICRP103 are provided. New CT-scanner generations involve markedly lower radiation doses versus older devices.

Key Points

• Effective dose, organ dose and SSDE are provided for CT-guided interventional examinations.

• These data allow identifying organs at risk of higher radiation dose.

• Detailed knowledge of radiation dose may contribute to a better individual risk-stratification.

• New CT-scanner generations involve markedly lower radiation doses compared to older devices.

Keywords

Radiation exposure Image-guided biopsy Multidetector computed tomography Radiation monitoring Ionizing radiation 

Abbreviations

CARE®

Combined Applications to Reduce Exposure

CT

Computed tomography

CTDIvol

CT dose indexvol

DLPbody

Dose-length product

ICRP

International Commission on Radiological Protection

kV

Kilovolt (tube voltage)

mAs

Milliampere second (tube current–time product)

Safire®

Sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction

SD

Standard deviation

SSDE

Size-specific dose estimate

WED

Water equivalent diameter

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr.med. Guberina.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

prospective / retrospective

observational

multicentre study

References

  1. 1.
    Tsai IC, Tsai WL, Chen MC et al (2009) CT-guided core biopsy of lung lesions: a primer. Am J Roentgenol 193:1228–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pao W, Kris MG, Iafrate AJ et al (2009) Integration of molecular profiling into the lung cancer clinic. Clin Cancer Res 15:5317–5322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gevaert O, Xu J, Hoang CD et al (2012) Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data — methods and preliminary results. Radiology. 264:387–396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography — an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leng S, Christner JA, Carlson SK et al (2011) Radiation Dose Levels for Interventional CT Procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 197:W97–W103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kloeckner R, dos Santos DP, Schneider J, Kara L, Dueber C, Pitton MB (2013) Radiation exposure in CT-guided interventions. Eur J Radiol. 82:2253–2257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Lifeng Y, Cody DD, Boone JM, McNitt-Gray MF (2011) CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology 259:311–316CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brink JA, Morin RL (2012) Size-specific dose estimation for CT: how should it be used and what does it mean? Radiology 265:666–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ICRP Publication 103 (2007) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP Vol. 37 (2-4). Elsevier Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guberina N, Forsting M, Suntharalingam S et al (2017) Radiation dose monitoring in the clinical routine. Rofo 189:356–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guberina N, Suntharalingam S, Naßenstein, Forsting M, Theysohn J, Wetter A K et al (2017) Verification of organ doses calculated by a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation in thoracic CT protocols. Acta Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117716199
  14. 14.
    Guberina N, Suntharalingam S, Naßenstein K et al (2016) Clinical evaluation of a dose monitoring software tool based on Monte Carlo Simulation in assessment of eye lens doses for cranial CT scans. Neuroradiology. 58:955-959.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL (2017) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161911
  16. 16.
    Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Karantanas A, Karabekios S, Gourtsoyiannis N (2007) Influence of z overscanning on normalized effective doses calculated for pediatric patients undergoing multidetector CT examinations. Med Phys 34:1163–1175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sinclair L, Griglock TM, Mench A (2015) Determining organ doses from ct with direct measurements in postmortem subjects: part 2--correlations with patient-specific parameters. Radiology. 277:471–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guberina N, Lechel U, Forsting M, Ringelstein A (2016) Efficacy of high-pitch CT protocols for radiation dose reduction. J Radiol Prot 36:N57–N66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menke J (2005) Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults. Radiology 236:565–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nika Guberina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Forsting
    • 1
  • Adrian Ringelstein
    • 1
  • Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam
    • 1
  • Kai Nassenstein
    • 1
  • Jens Theysohn
    • 1
  • Axel Wetter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations