Advertisement

Emergency Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 21–27 | Cite as

Radiation overexposure from repeated CT scans in young adults with acute abdominal pain

  • Massimo TonoliniEmail author
  • Elena Valconi
  • Angelo Vanzulli
  • Roberto Bianco
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to assess the dose of ionizing radiation caused by repeated CT scans performed to investigate non-traumatic acute abdominal conditions in young adults.

Methods

Over 26 months, we collected a cohort of patients aged 18 to 45 years who were subject to at least one urgent contrast-enhanced abdomen/pelvis CT. Patients affected with urolithiasis, HIV infection, tumors, and vascular and chronic inflammatory bowel diseases were excluded. All abdomen/pelvis CT scans carried out at our institution for over 6 years were retrospectively tallied, and the effective doses (EDs) were computed by multiplying the total dose-length product by the appropriate anatomic conversion factor. Examples of age- and gender-adjusted lifetime attributable cancer risks were estimated using the online calculator Radiation Risk Assessment Tool.

Results

Sixty-one patients (average age 34.2 years) received multiple CT scans (average 2.7 scans per patient). ED largely varied among single- and multi-phase acquisitions. Cumulative ED ranged from 14.1 mSv to a maximum of 436.6 mSv (average 70.1 mSv per person). Twenty-five patients (40.9%) received more than 50 mSv, 84% of them within year; 12 (19.7%) and 4 (6.6%) patients received more than 100 and 200 mSv, respectively.

Conclusion

Young adults are subject to repetitive CT imaging to monitor urogenital, intestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic disorders during non-operative management to detect and follow up abdominal emergencies requiring surgical intervention and to assess post-surgical complications. In this population, the risk of accruing high cumulative radiation exposure should be considered.

Keywords

Computed tomography (CT) Acute abdomen Young adults Ionizing radiation Effective dose 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cartwright SL, Knudson MP (2015) Diagnostic imaging of acute abdominal pain in adults. Am Fam Physician 91:452–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chin JY, Goldstraw E, Lunniss PJ et al (2012) Evaluation of the utility of abdominal CT scans in the diagnosis, management, outcome and information given at discharge of patients with non-traumatic acute abdominal pain. BJR 85:e596–e602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gangadhar K, Kielar A, Dighe MK et al (2016) Multimodality approach for imaging of nontraumatic acute abdominal emergencies. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ et al (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13:418–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stoker J, van Randen A, Lameris W et al (2009) Imaging patients with acute abdominal pain. Radiology 253:31–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Randen A, Lameris W, Van Es W et al (2011) A comparison of the accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 21:1535–1545CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodehead DT et al (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:13761–13766CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M et al (2005) Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 331:77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffey RT, Sodickson A (2009) Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:887–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendee WR, O’Connor MK (2012) Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating facts from fantasy. Radiology 264:312–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shah KH, Slovis BH, Runde D et al (2013) Radiation exposure among patients with the highest CT scan utilization in the emergency department. Emerg Radiol 20:485–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Worrall JC, Jama S, Stiell IG (2014) Radiation doses to emergency department patients undergoing computed tomography. CJEM 16:477–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sensakovic WF, Warden DR (2016) What is the CT dose report sheet and why is it useful? AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:929–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bongartz G European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography (EUR 16262)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Research Council (NRC) Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. (2005) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academy of Sciences; Washington, DC Available at: “http://nap.edu/11340.: Accessed Jan 30, 2017
  18. 18.
    Durand DJ (2011) A rational approach to the clinical use of cumulative effective dose estimates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:160–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Griffey RT, Jeffe DB, Bailey T (2014) Emergency physicians’ attitudes and preferences regarding computed tomography, radiation exposure, and imaging decision support. Acad Emerg Med 21:768–777CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pines JM (2009) Trends in the rates of radiography use and important diagnoses in emergency department patients with abdominal pain. Med Care 47:782–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berrington de Gonzalez A, Iulian Apostoaei A, Veiga LH et al (2012) RadRAT: a radiation risk assessment tool for lifetime cancer risk projection. J Radiol Prot 32:205–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gunalp M, Gulunay B, Polat O et al (2014) Ionising radiation awareness among resident doctors, interns, and radiographers in a university hospital emergency department. Radiol Med 119:440–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheu Y, Furlan A, Almusa O et al (2012) The revised Atlanta classification for acute pancreatitis: a CT imaging guide for radiologists. Emerg Radiol 19:237–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zaheer A, Singh VK, Qureshi RO et al (2013) The revised Atlanta classification for acute pancreatitis: updates in imaging terminology and guidelines. Abdom Imaging 38:125–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ball CG, Correa-Gallego C, Howard TJ et al (2010) Radiation dose from computed tomography in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis: how much is too much ? J Gastrointest Surg 14:1529–1535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morgan DE, Ragheb CM, Lockhart ME et al (2010) Acute pancreatitis: computed tomography utilization and radiation exposure are related to severity but not patient age. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8:303–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tonolini M, Villa F, Ippolito S et al (2015) Pictorial review of normal postoperative cross-sectional imaging findings and infectious complications following laparoscopic appendectomy. Insights Imaging 6:65–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nau P, Molina G, Shima A et al (2015) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is associated with an increased exposure to ionizing radiation. Surg Obes Relat Dis 11:308–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oei TN, Shyn PB, Govindarajulu U et al (2010) Diagnostic medical radiation dose in patients after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 20:569–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ditkofsky NG, Singh A, Avery L et al (2014) The role of emergency MRI in the setting of acute abdominal pain. Emerg Radiol 21:615–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh A, Danrad R, Hahn PF et al (2007) MR imaging of the acute abdomen and pelvis: acute appendicitis and beyond. Radiographics 27:1419–1431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tkacz JN, Anderson SA, Soto J (2009) MR imaging in gastrointestinal emergencies. Radiographics 29:1767–1780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tonolini M, Ravelli A, Villa C et al (2012) Urgent MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) of acute cholecystitis and related complications: diagnostic role and spectrum of imaging findings. Emerg Radiol 19:341–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Pascale A, Piccoli GB, Priola SM et al (2013) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new perspectives in the diagnostic pathway of non-complicated acute pyelonephritis. Eur Radiol 23:3077–3086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Freitas TF, Schraibman V, Ardengh JC et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging indicates the severity of acute pancreatitis. Abdom Imaging 40:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee NK, Kim S, Kim DU et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for non-neoplastic conditions in the hepatobiliary and pancreatic regions: pearls and potential pitfalls in imaging interpretation. Abdom Imaging 40:643–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology“Luigi Sacco” University HospitalMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyNiguarda Ca’ Granda HospitalMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations