Radiation Dose from Computed Tomography in Patients with Necrotizing Pancreatitis: How Much Is Too Much?
- First Online:
- 136 Downloads
Low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging has been indirectly linked with subsequent cancer. Computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard for defining pancreatic necrosis. The primary goal was to identify the frequency and effective radiation dose of CT imaging for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.
All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2003–2007) were retrospectively analyzed for CT-related radiation exposure.
Necrosis was identified in 18% (238/1290) of patients with acute pancreatitis (mean age = 53 years; hospital/ICU length of stay = 23/7 days; mortality = 9%). A median of five CTs/patient [interquartile range (IQR) = 4] were performed during a median 2.6-month interval. The average effective dose was 40 mSv per patient (equivalent to 2,000 chest X-rays; 13.2 years of background radiation; one out of 250 increased risk of fatal cancer). The actual effective dose was 63 mSv considering various scanner technologies. CTs were infrequently (20%) followed by direct intervention (199 interventional radiology, 118 operative, 12 endoscopic) (median = 1; IQR = 2). Magnetic resonance imaging did not have a CT-sparing effect. Mean direct hospital costs increased linearly with CT number (R = 0.7).
The effective radiation dose received by patients with necrotizing pancreatitis is significant. Management changes infrequently follow CT imaging. The ubiquitous use of CT in necrotizing pancreatitis raises substantial public health concerns and mandates a careful reassessment of its utility.
KeywordsNecrotizing pancreatitis Radiation Computed tomography
- 2.Uhl W, Warshaw A, Imrie C, Bassi C, McKay CJ, Lankisch PG, Carter R, Di Magno E, Banks PA, Whitcomb DC, Dervenis C, Ulrich CD, Satake K, Ghaneh P, Hartwig W, Werner J, McEntee G, Neoptolemos JP, Buchler MW. IAP guidelines for the surgical management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2002;2:565–573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Brix G, Nissen-Meyer S, Lechel U, Nissen-Meyer J, Griebel J, Nekolaa AE, Becker C, Reiser M. Radiation exposures of cancer patients from medical x-rays: How relevant are they for individual patients and population exposure? Eur J Rad 2009; 72(2):342–347Google Scholar
- 16.Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation: UNESCEAR 2000 report to the General Assembly. New York: United Nations, 2000.Google Scholar
- 17.IMV 2006 CT Market Summary Report. Des Plains, IL: IMV Medical Information Division, 2006.Google Scholar
- 18.Amis Jr ES, Butler PF, Applegate KE, Birnbaum SB, Brateman LF, Hevezi JM, Mettler FA, Morin RL, Pentecost MJ, Smith GC, Strauss KJ, Zeman RK. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology White paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:272–284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Nekolla E, Veit R, Griebel J, Brix G. Frequency and effective dose of diagnostic x-ray procedures in Germany. Biomed Tech 2005;5-:1334–1335.Google Scholar
- 26.National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 2006.Google Scholar
- 39.UNSCEAR 2000. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation. Health Phys 2000;79:314.Google Scholar
- 41.What’s NEXT? Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends: 2000 computed tomography. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Department of Health and Human Services. 2006. http://www.crcpd.org/Pubs/NexTrifolds/NEXT2000CT_T.pdf. Accessed on November 2, 2009.
- 43.Tubiana M. Computed tomography and radiation exposure. NEJM 2009;358:850–853.Google Scholar
- 48.Casarett G, Bair WJ, Meinhold CB. NCRP Report No. 91. Recommendations on limited exposure to ionizing radiation. Bethesda (MD) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 1980; p. 3–10.Google Scholar
- 49.International Commission on Radiation Protection. Development of the Draft 2005 recommendations of the ICRP: a collection of papers. A report of ICRP supporting guidance 4. Ann ICRP 2004;34 Suppl:1–44.Google Scholar
- 50.American College of Surgeons: Committee on Trauma. National Trauma Data Bank 2009 Annual Report. http://www.facs.org/trauma/ntdb/ntdbannualreport2009.pdf. Accessed on November 17, 2009.
- 51.Garfinkel L. Probability of developing or dying of cancer. United States, 1991. Sta Bull Metrop Insur Co 1995;76:1–201.Google Scholar
- 53.Tien HC, Tremblay LN, Rizoli SB, Gelberg J, Spencer F, Caldwell C, Brenneman FD. Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in severely injured trauma patients. J Trauma 2007;176:289–296.Google Scholar
- 55.Yamada Y, Mori H, Matsumoto S, Kiyosue H, Hori Y, Hongo N. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma versus pancreatitis: differentiation with triple-phase helical CT. Abdom Imaging 2010. 35(2):163–171.Google Scholar
- 57.United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulation (10 CFR), subpart B. Washington, DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part02/part020-1101.html. Accessed on November 2, 2009.
- 58.Prasad KN, Cole WC, Haase GM. Radiation protection in humans: extending the concept of low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) from dose to biological damage. Br J Radiol 2003;327:371–372.Google Scholar
- 61.Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PR, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, Johnson ND, Kaste SC, Morrison G, Strauss KJ. Image Gently(SM): a national education and communication campaign in radiology using the science of social marketing. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5:1200–1205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 62.Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, Dixon RL, Ferrari VA, Gomes AS, Heller GV, McCollough CH, McNitt-Gray MF, Mettler FA, Mieres JH, Morin RL, Yester MV. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention 2009;119:1056–1065.Google Scholar