Capture and analysis of radiation dose reports for radiology

  • S. M. MidgleyEmail author
Technical Paper


Radiographic imaging systems can produce records of exposure and dose parameters for each patient. A variety of file formats are in use including plain text, bit map images showing pictures of written text and radiation dose structured reports as text or extended markup language files. Whilst some of this information is available with image data on the hospital picture archive and communication system, access is restricted to individual patient records, thereby making it difficult to locate multiple records for the same scan protocol. This study considers the exposure records and dose reports from four modalities. Exposure records for mammography and general radiography are utilized for repeat analysis. Dose reports for fluoroscopy and computed tomography (CT) are utilized to study the distribution of patient doses for each protocol. Results for dosimetric quantities measured by General Radiography, Fluoroscopy and CT equipment are summarised and presented in the Appendix. Projection imaging uses the dose (in air) area product and derived quantities including the dose to the reference point as a measure of the air kerma reaching the skin, ignoring movement of the beam for fluoroscopy. CT uses the dose indices CTDIvol and dose length product as a measure of the dose per axial slice, and to the scanned volume. Suitable conversion factors are identified and used to estimate the effective dose to an average size patient (for CT and fluoroscopy) and the entrance skin dose for fluoroscopy.


Radiology exposure records Radiology dose reports  Reject analysis Fluoroscopy entrance skin dose CT dose indices Radiology effective dose Diagnostic reference levels 



The authors thank Andy Le and Irene Ngui of the RMH RIS/PACS team for their invaluable assistance in trouble shooting IT systems and developing work-arounds. The equipment vendors assisted by identifying the dose reporting capabilities of their systems, in providing technical support to enable these features and their integration with the local network. We value to assistance in these matters provided by Chris Hodges (Fuji film), Jeff Solamano and Peter Caffyn (Philips Health care), Mishelle Korleat and Colin Johnstone (Siemens Health care) and Rodney Lee (Toshiba Australia Medical Systems). We thank Ann Seal (RMH radiology) for sharing QA results for mammography workload and reject rates, and Paul Einsiedel for useful discussions about dosimetry across all modalities.


  1. 1.
    ARPANSA (2008a) Code of practice for radiation protection in the medical applications of ionizing radiation ARPANSA RPS 14. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie, pp 1, 3, 6–8, 10, 18Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ARPANSA (2008b) Radiation protection in diagnostic and interventional radiology—ARPANSA safety guide 14.1.Australian Radiation protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie, pp 12–13, 17, 19–20, 30–32, 44Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, West M (1999) A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations. Br J Radiol 72:653–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Honea R, Blado ME, Ma Y (2002) Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? J Dig Imag 15(Suppl 1):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heggie JCP (2005) Patient doses in multi-slice CT and the importance of optimisation. Austral Phys Eng Sci Med 28:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heggie JCP, Kay JK, Lee WK (2006) Importance in optimization of multi-slice computed tomography scan protocols. Austral Radiol 50:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    VIC (2005) DHS Mandatory reporting of radiation incidents—management licence holder obligations under the Radiation act 2005. VIC Department of health (DOH) Publication. Accessed Oct 2013
  8. 8.
    Hart D, Wall BF (2002) Radiation exposure to the UK population from medical and dental X-ray examinations. Technical report W4. National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, pp 37–38Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deak PD, Small Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Servomaa A, Tapiovaara M (1998) Organ dose calculation in medical X-ray examinations by the program PCXMC. Rad Prot Dosim 80(1):213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones DG, Schrimpton PC (1993) Normalised organ doses for X-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. NRPB-SR250 National Radiological Protection Board, ChiltonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis MA et al (2000) Estimating patient dose on current CT scanner; results of the the IMPACT CT dose survey. Rad Mag 26:178–181Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ImPACT CT Patient Dosimetry Calculator (2009) Version 1.0, 28/08/2009. Accessed Oct 2013
  14. 14.
    Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-expo a novel program for dose evaluation in CT [Article In German] Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Röntgenstrahlen und der. Nuklearmedizin 174(12):1570–6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clunie DA (2001) DICOM structured reporting, pp 21–23, 30–103, 306–308, 363–370. PixelMed Publishing Bangor PA; Accessed Oct 2013
  16. 16.
    Dicom (2013) CT dose information in DICOM data p 1. Accessed Oct 2013
  17. 17.
    Cook TS et al (2010) Automated extraction of radiation dose information for CT examinations. J Am Coll Radiol 7(11):871–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cook TS et al (2011) Informatics in radiology: RADIANCE: an automated, enterprise-wide solution for archiving and reporting CT radiation dose estimates. Radiographics 31:1833–1846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siemens (2010) CARE analytics—enhanced dose reporting operators manual Accessed Oct 2013
  20. 20.
    Noumeir R (2005) Benefits of the DICOM modality performed procedure step J Digital imaging 18(4):260–269.; DICOM supplement 17: modality performed procedure step Accessed Oct 2013
  21. 21.
    Harrison RM (1982) Back scatter factors for diagnostic radiology (1–4 mm Al HVL). Phys Med Biol 27(12):1465–1474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flesner A (2007) AutoIt (v3); your quick guide p1–55 O’Reilly media, freeware. Accessed Oct 2013
  23. 23.
    Siever E (1997) Linux in a nutshell: a desktop quick reference. O’Reilly and Associates, Sebastopol, pp 124–125, 167–202, 295–305, 306–319Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Craig AR, Heggie JCP, McLean D, Coakley KS, Nicoll JJ (2001) Recommendations for a mammography quality assurance program. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 24:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heggie JCP, McLean ID, Herley J, Thomson FJ, Grewal RK, Diffey J, Collins LT (2012) ACPSEM position paper recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance programme V3.0. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 24:1–27Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ARPANSA Australian National Adult Diagnostic Reference Levels for MDCT p1 (2012) Australian Radiation protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie. Accessed Oct 2013
  27. 27.
    Bushberg JT et al (2012) The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia, pp 774–779Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kars J et al (2007) XML processing with gawk. Free Software Foundation Dec, pp 1–20, 23–24. Accessed Oct 2013
  29. 29.
    Cody DD et al (2013) AAPM medical physics practice guideline1.a: CT protocol management and review practice guideline—AAPM TG225. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14(5):3–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hayton A et al (2013) Australian per caput dose from diagnostic imaging and nuclear medicine. Rad prot dosim 156(4):445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyRoyal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations