Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention

  • Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To identify a patient cohort who received ≥ 100 mSv during a single computed tomography (CT)-guided intervention and analyze clinical information.

Materials and methods

Using the dose-tracking platform Radimetrics that collects data from all CT scanners in a single hospital, a patient-level search was performed retrospectively by setting a threshold effective dose (E) of 100 mSv for the period from January 2013 to December 2017. Patients who received ≥ 100 mSv in a single day during a single CT-guided intervention were then identified. Procedure types were identified, and medical records were reviewed up to January 2020 to identify patients who developed short- and/or medium-term (up to 8 years) medical consequences.

Results

Of 8952 patients with 100 mSv+, there were 33 patients who underwent 37 CT-guided interventions each resulting in ≥ 100 mSv. Procedures included ablations (15), myelograms (8), drainages (7), biopsies (6), and other (1). The dose for individual procedures was 100.2 to 235.5 mSv with mean and median of 125.7 mSv and 111.8 mSv, respectively. Six patients (18 %) were less than 50 years of age. During the study period of 0.2 to 7 years, there were no deterministic or stochastic consequences identified in this study cohort.

Conclusions

While infrequent, CT-guided interventions may result in a single procedure dose of ≥ 100 mSv. Awareness of the possibility of such high doses and potential for long-term deleterious effects, especially in younger patients, and consideration of alternative imaging guidance and/or further dose optimization should be strongly considered whenever feasible.

Key Points

• Although not so frequent, CT-guided interventions may result in a single procedure dose of ≥ 100 mSv

• Procedures with potential for high dose includes ablations, myelograms, drainages, and biopsies

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CED:

Cumulative effective dose

CTDIvol :

Computed tomography dose index (volume-weighted)

DLP:

Dose length product

E:

Effective dose

ICRP:

International Commission on Radiological Protection

IR:

Interventional radiology

References

  1. Charalel RA, McGinty G, Brant-Zawadzki M et al (2015) Interventional radiology delivers high-value health care and is an Imaging 3.0 vanguard. J Am Coll Radiol 12:501–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mettler FA, Mahesh M, Bhargavan-Chatfield M et al (2020) Patient exposure from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures in the United States: procedure volume and effective dose for the period 2006-2016. Radiology 295:418–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsapaki V, Balter S, Cousins C et al (2018) The International Atomic Energy Agency action plan on radiation protection of patients and staff in interventional procedures: achieving change in practice. Phys Med 52:56–64

  4. Rehani MM (2013) Challenges in radiation protection of patients for the 21st century. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(4):762–764. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rehani MM, Vano E, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Kleiman NJ (2011) Radiation and cataract. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 147:300–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ (2010) Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology 254:326–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jaschke W, Bartal G, Martin CJ, Vano E (2020) Unintended and accidental exposures, significant dose events and trigger levels in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02517-2

  8. Liu B, Hirsch JA, Li X et al (2019) Radiation dose monitoring for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: effect on patient radiation exposure. Radiology 290:744–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kostova-Lefterova D, Vassileva J, Rehani MM (2017) Lessons from two cases of radiation induced skin injuries in fluoroscopic procedures in Bulgaria. J Radiol Prot 37:938–946

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rehani MM, Berris T (2012) International Atomic Energy Agency study with referring physicians on patient radiation exposure and its tracking: a prospective survey using a web-based questionnaire. BMJ Open 2(5):e001425. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001425

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 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  Google Scholar 

  12. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2360

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Brambilla M, Marano G, Dominietto M, Cotroneo AR, Carriero A (2004) Patient radiation doses and references levels in interventional radiology. Radiol Med 107:408–418

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leng S, Christner JA, Carlson SK et al (2011) Radiation dose levels for interventional CT procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W97–W103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rehani MM, Yang K, Melick ER et al (2020) Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude. Eur Radiol 30:1828–1836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (2018) Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear-non threshold model and radiation protection. NCRP Commentary No. 27. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP

  18. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP Publication 103 37(2–4):1–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003

  19. Yang K, Ganguli S, DeLorenzo MC, Zheng H, Li X, Liu B (2018) Procedure-specific CT dose and utilization factors for CT-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 289:150–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones AK, Dixon RG, Collins JD, Walser EM, Nikolic B (2018) Society OIRHASC. Best practice guidelines for CT-guided interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 29:518–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li X, Yang K, Liu B (2019) Exam-level dose monitoring in CT: quality metric consideration for multiple series acquisitions. Med Phys 46:1575–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rehani MM, Melick ER, Alvi RM et al (2020) Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness. Eur Radiol 30:1839–1846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang K, Li Z, Li X, Liu B (2019) Characterization of dynamic collimation mechanisms for helical CT scans with direct measurements. Phys Med Biol 64:215006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Carlson SK, Felmlee JP, Bender CE et al (2005) CT fluoroscopy-guided biopsy of the lung or upper abdomen with a breath-hold monitoring and feedback system: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Radiology 237:701–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Artner J, Cakir B, Reichel H, Lattig F (2012) Radiation dose reduction in CT-guided sacroiliac joint injections to levels of pulsed fluoroscopy: a comparative study with technical considerations. J Pain Res 5:265–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kloeckner R, dos Santos DP, Schneider J, Kara L, Dueber C, Pitton MB (2013) Radiation exposure in CT-guided interventions. Eur J Radiol 82:2253–2257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McCarthy CJ, Kilcoyne A, Li X et al (2018) Radiation dose and risk estimates of CT-guided percutaneous liver ablations and factors associated with dose reduction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41:1935–1942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eisenberg JD, Gervais DA, Singh S et al (2015) Radiation exposure from CT-guided ablation of renal masses: effects on life expectancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:335–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Crocetti L, Lencioni R, Debeni S, See TC, Pina CD, Bartolozzi C (2008) Targeting liver lesions for radiofrequency ablation: an experimental feasibility study using a CT-US fusion imaging system. Invest Radiol 43:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rehani MM, Hauptmann M (2020) Estimates of the number of patients with high cumulative doses through recurrent CT exams in 35 OECD countries. Phys Med 76:173–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.07.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Ronald S. Arellano, Kai Yang & Madan M. Rehani

Authors
  1. Ronald S. Arellano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Madan M. Rehani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald S. Arellano.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ronald Arellano.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No statistical analysis expertise was availed besides authors.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Observational

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arellano, R.S., Yang, K. & Rehani, M.M. Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention. Eur Radiol 31, 3065–3070 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07458-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07458-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation