Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging wisely: patient safety in CT

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The past decade has seen a significant growth in diagnostic CT imaging as a direct result of the clinical value provided by CT imaging. At the same time, many new techniques and resources are now available to make CT imaging safe. This article presents the basics of CT dosimetry and their usage in clinical practices, methods to implement CT dose reduction, followed by a summary of legislation, and guidelines related to patient safety in diagnostic CT imaging. Also, CT radiation dose diagnostic reference levels from published regional and national surveys are reviewed and applied in a CT dose tracking and monitoring program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IMV—Medical Information Division (2014) CT Market Outlook Report [Internet] 2014. http://www.imvinfo.com/index.aspx?sec=ct&sub=dis&itemid=200081. Accessed Oct 8 2015

  2. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2009) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report No. 160 ed. Bethesda, MD: NCRP

  3. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1987) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report No. 93 ed. Bethesda, MD: NCRP

  4. Kalender WA (2014) Dose in X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 59(3):R129–R150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. American College of Radiology (2015) The ACR Appropriateness Criteria® [Internet]. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria/About-AC. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

  6. The Alliance for Radiation in Pediatric Imaging (2015) Image Gently Campaign [Internet]. http://www.imagegently.org/. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

  7. American College of Radiology (2015) Image Wisely Campaign [Internet]. http://www.imagewisely.org/. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

  8. Jucius RA, Kambic GX (1977) Radiation dosimetry in computed tomography. Appl Opt Instrum Eng Med. 127:286–295

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC (1981) A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 8(4):488–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. FDA (1984) Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, 21 CFR Part 1020.33, Government Printing Office. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=1020.33. Accessed 9 Mar 2016

  11. Nickoloff EL, Dutta AK, Lu ZF (2003) Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. Med Phys 30(3):395–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boone J, Strauss K, Cody D, McCollough C, McNitt-Gray M, Toth T (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT exams: Report of AAPM Task Group 204

  13. McCollough C, Bakalyar DM, Bostani M, Brady S, Boedeker K, Boone JM, et al. (2014) Use of water equivalent diameter for calculating patient size and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in CT: the Report of AAPM Task Group 220

  14. O’Connell T, Chang D, Aldrich JE, Mayo JR (2010) Creating an unified patient radiation dose tracking system. Chicago: Radiological Society of North America. https://www.rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science_and_Education/Quality/3062-OConnell.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2016

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC (1991) Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 3: normalised organ doses calculated using monte carlo techniques. Chilton

  16. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) ICRP Publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37 (2–4), ICRP

  17. 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(1):158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Blitman NM, Anwar M, Brady KB, Taragin BH, Freeman K (2015) Value of focused appendicitis ultrasound and alvarado score in predicting appendicitis in children: Can we reduce the use of CT? Am J Roentgenol 204(6):W707–W712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Spalluto LB, Woodfield CA, DeBenedectis CM, Lazarus E (2012) MR imaging evaluation of abdominal pain during pregnancy: appendicitis and other nonobstetric causes. RadioGraphics 32(2):317–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patz EF Jr, Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, et al. (1999) Lung cancer staging and management: comparison of contrast-enhanced and nonenhanced helical CT of the thorax. Radiology 212(1):56–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Levin DC, Parker L, Halpern EJ, Rao VM (2014) Are combined CT scans of the thorax being overused? J Am Coll Radiol 11(8):788–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sadigh G, Applegate KE, Baumgarten DA (2014) Comparative accuracy of intravenous contrast-enhanced CT versus noncontrast CT plus intravenous contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterization of patients with hypervascular liver metastases: a critically appraised topic. Acad Radiol 21(1):113–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA, et al. (2003) Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 229(1):81–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. (2004) Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 233(3):649–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bae KT (2010) Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology 256(1):32–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2015) Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: technical concepts and clinical implementation. Am J Roentgenol 205(1):W19–W31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prepublication requirements: revised requirements for diagnostic imaging services, issued January 9, 2015, effective July 1, 2015. The Joint Commission 2015.

  28. Cody DD, Pfeiffer D, McNitt-Gray MF, Ruckdeschel TG, Strauss KJ (2012) ACR computed tomography quality control manual. American College of Radiology

  29. Shih G, Lu ZF, Zabih R, et al. (2011) Automated framework for digital radiation dose index reporting from CT dose reports. Am J Roentgenol 197(5):1170–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance. [Internet] (2015) Accessed 8 Oct 2015. http://www.medicalimaging.org/policy-and-positions/mita-smart-dose/

  31. Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (2014) 113th Congress (2013–2014); 2014 Public Law No: 113–93. Accessed 8 Oct 2015. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4302

  32. Radiation protection (1997) Protection from potential exposures: application to selected radiation sources. A report of a task group of the International Commission on Radiation Protection. Ann ICRP 27(2):1–61

  33. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Meeson S, Golding SJ, Public Health E, Centre for Radiation C, et al. (2014) Doses from computer tomography (CT) examinations in the UK, 2011 review

  34. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2012) Reference levels and achievable doses in medical and dental imaging: recommendations for the United States. Report No. 172. Bethesda: NCRP

  35. Christianson O, Li X, Frush D, Samei E (2012) Automated size-specific CT dose monitoring program: assessing variability in CT dose. Med Phys 39(11):7131–7139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. American College of Radiology (2015) Dose index registry [Internet]. http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/national-radiology-data-registry/dose-index-registry. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

  37. Brink JA, Miller DL (2015) U.S. national diagnostic reference levels: closing the gap. Radiology 277(1):3–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Escalon JG, Chatfield MB, Sengupta D, Loftus ML (2015) Dose length products for the 10 most commonly ordered CT examinations in adults: analysis of three years of the ACR dose index registry. J Am Coll Radiol 12(8):815–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Radiological Society of North American (2015) RadLex Playbook [Internet]. https://www.rsna.org/RadLex_Playbook.aspx. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

  40. Smith-Bindman R, Moghadassi M, Wilson N, et al. (2015) Radiation doses in consecutive CT examinations from five University of California Medical Centers. Radiology 277(1):134–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. MacGregor K, Li I, Dowdell T, Gray BG (2015) Identifying institutional diagnostic reference levels for CT with radiation dose index monitoring software. Radiology 276(2):507–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McCollough CH, Bushberg JT, Fletcher JG, Eckel LJ (2015) Answers to Common Questions About the Use and Safety of CT Scans. Mayo Clin Proc 90(10):1380–1392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Health Physics Society (1996) Position statement of the Health Physics Society: radiation risk in perspective [Internet]. Accessed https://hps.org/documents/risk_ps010-2.pdf

  44. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2012) Uncertainties in the estimation of radiation risks and probability of disease causation. Report No. 171. Bethesda, MD: NCRP

  45. International Organization for Medical Physics (2013) Predictions of induced cancers and cancer deaths in a population of patients exposed to low doses (<100 mSv) of ionizing radiation during medical imaging procedures. [Internet], IOMP. http://www.iomp.org/sites/default/files/policy_statement_3.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

  46. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) Position statement on radiation risks from medical imaging procedures [Internet]. http://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=318&type=PP. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Avenue, MC 2026, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Zheng Feng Lu & Stephen Thomas

Authors
  1. Zheng Feng Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zheng Feng Lu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, Z.F., Thomas, S. Imaging wisely: patient safety in CT. Abdom Radiol 41, 452–460 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0676-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0676-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation