Advertisement

X-ray examination dose surveys: how accurate are my results?

  • Stephen Taylor
  • Alain Van Muylem
  • Nigel Howarth
  • Pierre Alain Gevenois
  • Denis TackEmail author
Physics

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the variabilities of dose-area-products (DAP) of frequent X-ray examinations collected for comparison with diagnostic reference levels (DRLs).

Methods

DAP values of chest, abdomen, and lumbar spine examinations obtained on devices from two manufacturers were collected in three centers over 1 to 2 years. The variability of the average DAP results defined as the 95% confidence interval in percentage of their median value was calculated for increasing sample sizes, each examination and center. We computed the sample sizes yielding variabilities lower or equal to 25% and 10%. The effect of narrowing patient selection based on body weight was also investigated (ranges of 67–73 Kg, or 60–80 Kg).

Results

DAP variabilities ranged from 75 to 170% of the median value when collecting small samples (10 to 20 DAP). To reduce this variability, larger samples are needed, collected over up to 2 years, regardless of the examination and center. A variability  10% could only be reached for chest X-rays, requiring up to 800 data. For the abdomen and lumbar spine, the lowest achievable variability was 25%, regardless of the body weight selection, requiring up to 400 data.

Conclusion

Variabilities in DAP collected through small samples of ten data as recommended by authorities are very high, but can be reduced down to 25% (abdomen and lumbar spine) or even 10% (chest) through a substantial increase in sample sizes. Our findings could assist radiologists and regulatory authorities in estimating the reliability of the data obtained when performing X-ray dose surveys.

Key Points

• Low but reasonable variabilities cannot be reached with samples sized as recommended by regulatory authorities. Higher numbers of DAP values are required to reduce the variability.

• Variabilities of 10% for the chest and 25% for abdomen and lumbar spine examinations are achievable, provided large samples of data are collected over 1 year.

• Our results could help radiologists and authorities interpret X-rays dose surveys.

Keywords

Radiation protection Radiography Surveys and questionnaires 

Abbreviations

AEC

Automatic exposure control

CTDIvol

Volume computed tomographic dose index

DAP

Dose area product

DRL

Diagnostic reference level

ESD

Entrance surface dose

EU

European Union

PA

Posterior-anterior

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 Denis Tack.

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.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• multicenter study

References

  1. 1.
    The council of the European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/43 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. Available via http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31997L0043. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  2. 2.
    The Council of the European Union (2013) Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Available via http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0059&from=EN. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  3. 3.
    European commission (1999) Radiation Protection 109: guidance on diagnostic reference levels for medical exposures. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/109_en.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  4. 4.
    National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (2002) Doses to Patients from Medical X-ray Examinations in the UK – 2000 Review. Availabe via https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405115/2002_NrpbW14.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  5. 5.
    Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Børretzen I, Lysdahl KB, Olerud HM (2007) Diagnostic radiology in Norway – trends in examination frequency and collective effective dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 124:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection (1997) Radiation Doses from Medical Diagnostic Procedures in Canada. Available via http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/about/past/timeline-dev/resources/documents/infohistorical/info-0670-E.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  8. 8.
    Health Protection Agency – Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards Radiation Protection Division (2007) Doses to Patients from Radiographic and Fluoroscopic X-ray Imaging Procedures in the UK – 2005 Review. Available via https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431134/HPA-RPD-029.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  9. 9.
    European commission (2008) Radiation Protection N°154: European Guidance on Estimating Population Doses from Medical X-Ray Procedures. Available via http://www.ddmed.eu/_media/background_of_ddm1:rp154.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  10. 10.
    Taylor S, Van Muylem A, Howarth N, Gevenois PA, Tack D (2017) CT dose survey in adults: what sample size for what precision? Eur Radiol 27:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP 46:1–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Task Group 204. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in MedicineGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bankier AA, Kressel HY (2012) Through the looking glass revisited: the need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT. Radiology 265:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christner JA, Braun NN, Jacobsen MC, Carter RE, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2012) Size-specific dose estimates for adult patients at CT of the torso. Radiology 265:841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHôpital Ambroise ParéMonsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of PneumologyHôpital ErasmeBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyClinique des GrangettesGenevaSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyHôpital ErasmeBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, EPICURAClinique Louis CatyBaudourBelgium

Personalised recommendations