Skip to main content

Radiation risk index for pediatric CT: a patient-derived metric

Abstract

Background

There is a benefit in characterizing radiation-induced cancer risk in pediatric chest and abdominopelvic CT: a singular metric that represents the whole-body radiation burden while also accounting for age, gender and organ sensitivity.

Objective

To compute an index of radiation risk for pediatric chest and abdominopelvic CT.

Materials and methods

Using a protocol approved by our institutional review board, 42 pediatric patients (age: 0-16 years, weight: 2-80 kg) were modeled into virtual whole-body anatomical models. Organ doses were estimated for clinical chest and abdominopelvic CT examinations of the patients using validated Monte Carlo simulations of two major scanner models. Using age-, size- and gender-specific organ risk coefficients, the values were converted to normalized effective dose (by dose length product) (denoted as the k factor) and a normalized risk index (denoted as the q factor). An analysis was performed to determine how these factors are correlated with patient age and size for both males and females to provide a strategy to better characterize individualized risk.

Results

The k factor was found to be exponentially correlated with the average patient diameter. For both genders, the q factor also exhibited an exponential relationship with both the average patient diameter and with patient age. For both factors, the differences between the scanner models were less than 8%.

Conclusion

The study defines a whole-body radiation risk index for chest and abdominopelvic CT imaging, that incorporates individual estimated organ dose values, organ radiation sensitivity, patient size, exposure age and patient gender. This indexing metrology enables the assessment and potential improvement of chest and abdominopelvic CT performance through surveillance of practice dose profiles across patients and may afford improved informed communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Bahador B (1996) Trends in diagnostic imaging to 2000. Urch Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    IMV (2012) CT Market Outlook Report. IMV Medical Information Division, Des Plaines, IL

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    McCollough CH, Chen GH, Kalender W et al (2012) Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. Radiology 264:567–580

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The image gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:273–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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 380:499–505

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    National Research Council (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation — BEIR VII. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) Image gently(SM): a national education and communication campaign in radiology using the science of social marketing. J Am Coll Radiol 5:1200–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L et al (2011) CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology 259:311–316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    AAPM (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations, AAPM report no. 204. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD

  11. 11.

    Kalender WA (2014) Dose in x-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 59:R129–R150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Martin CJ (2007) Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 80:639–647

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    McCollough CH, Christner JA, Kofler JM (2010) How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk? AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:890–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection, ICRP publication 103. Essen, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bogdanich W (2009) Radiation overdoses point up dangers of CT scans. In the New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16radiation.html

  16. 16.

    Bogdanich W (2011) West Virginia hospital over radiated brain scan patients, records show. In the New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/health/06radiation.html?_r=3

  17. 17.

    Brenner DJ (2008) Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Br J Radiol 81:521–523

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lee C, Lee C, Staton RJ et al (2007) Organ and effective doses in pediatric patients undergoing helical multislice computed tomography examination. Med Phys 34:1858–1873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hurwitz LM, Reiman RE, Yoshizumi TT et al (2007) Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology 245:742–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hendee WR, O'Connor MK (2012) Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 264:312–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Dorfman AL, Fazel R, Einstein AJ et al (2011) Use of medical imaging procedures with ionizing radiation in children: a population-based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 165:458–464

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Li X, Samei E, Segars WP et al (2011) Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part II. Application to patients. Med Phys 38:408–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Segars WP, Mahesh M, Beck TJ et al (2008) Realistic CT simulation using the 4D XCAT phantom. Med Phys 35:3800–3808

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Segars WP, Sturgeon G, et al (2009). Patient specific computerized phantoms to estimate dose in pediatric CT. SPIE Proceedings, p 72580H

  25. 25.

    ICRP (2002) Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values, ICRP publication 89. International Commission on Radiological Protection, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Baro J, Sempau J, Fernandez-Varea JM, Salvat F (1995) PENELOPE: an algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation of the penetration and energy loss of electrons and positrons in matter. Nucl Instrum Meth B 100:31–46

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Sempau J, Fernandez-Varea JM, Acosta E, Salvat F (2003) Experimental benchmarks of the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE. Nucl Instrum Meth B 207:107–123

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Li X, Samei E, Segars WP et al (2011) Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part I. Development and validation of a Monte Carlo program. Med Phys 38:397–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Tian X, Li X, Segars WP et al (2014) Pediatric chest and abdominopelvic CT: organ dose estimation based on 42 patient models. Radiology 270:535–547

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Li X, Samei E, Segars WP et al (2011) Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk for pediatric chest CT. Radiology 259:862–874

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dougeni E, Chapple CL, Willis J et al (2011) Assessment of effective dose in paediatric CT examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim 147:147–150

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kleinman PL, Strauss KJ, Zurakowski D et al (2010) Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children's hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1611–1619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    The State of California SB 1237 (2010) Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1237_bill_20100929_chaptered.html

  34. 34.

    Hendrick RE, Dodd GD 3rd, Fullerton GD et al (2012) The University of Colorado Radiology Adult Dose-Risk Smartcard. J Am Coll Radiol 9:290–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    The Joint Commission (2011) Sentinel Event Alert, Issue 47, Aug 24, 2011

  36. 36.

    Dietze G, Harrison JD, Menzel HG (2009) Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Comments on a paper by D J Brenner (Br J Radiol 2008;81:521-3). Br J Radiol 82:348–350 author reply 350-341

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Pradhan AS, Kim JL, Lee JI (2012) On the use of "effective dose" (E) in medical exposures. J Med Phys 37:63–65

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011). AAPM position statement on radiation risks from medical imaging procedures Available at http://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=318&type=PP

  39. 39.

    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2012) Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology 265:330–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Alessio AM, Phillips GS (2010) A pediatric CT dose and risk estimator. Pediatr Radiol 40:1816–1821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Colagrande S, Origgi D, Zatelli G et al (2014) CT exposure in adult and paediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequent possible risks. Radiol Med 119:803–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Peck DJ, Samei E (2017) American College of Radiology: How to understand and communicate radiation risk. http://www.imagewisely.org/imaging-modalities/computed-tomography/medical-physicists/articles/how-to-understand-and-communicate-radiation-risk. Accessed 07 Aug 2017

  43. 43.

    Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Fletcher JG, Kofler JM, Coburn JA et al (2013) Perspective on radiation risk in CT imaging. Abdom Imaging 38:22–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald P. Frush.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samei, E., Tian, X., Paul Segars, W. et al. Radiation risk index for pediatric CT: a patient-derived metric. Pediatr Radiol 47, 1737–1744 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3973-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Children
  • Computed tomography
  • Effective dose
  • Radiation dose
  • Radiation risk