Skip to main content

CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications: results of a large-scale European survey

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of defining diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) on a European basis for specific clinical indications (CIs), within the context of the European Clinical DRLs (EUCLID) European Commission project.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, industry-independent European study was performed to provide data on 10 CIs (stroke, chronic sinusitis, cervical spine trauma, pulmonary embolism, coronary calcium scoring, coronary angiography, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, colic/abdominal pain, and appendicitis) via an online survey that included information on patient clinical, technical, and dosimetric parameters. Data from at least 20 patients per CI were requested from each hospital. To establish DRLs, a methodology in line with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Report 135 good practice recommendations was followed.

Results

Data were collected from 19 hospitals in 14 European countries on 4299 adult patients and 10 CIs to determine DRLs. DRLs differ considerably between sites for the same CI. Differences were attributed mainly to technical protocol and variable number of phases/scan lengths. Stroke and hepatocellular carcinoma were the CIs with the highest DRLs. Coronary calcium scoring had the lowest DRL value. Comparison with published literature was limited, as there was scarce information on DRLs based on CI.

Conclusions

This is the first study reporting on feasibility of establishing CT DRLs based on CI using European data. Resulting values will serve as a baseline for comparison with local radiological practice, national authorities when DRLs are set/updated, or as a guideline for local DRL establishment.

Key Points

First study reporting on the feasibility of establishing CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indication using data collected across Europe.

Only one-fourth of the hospitals had CT machines less than 5 years old.

Large dose variations were observed among hospitals and CT protocols were quite different between hospitals.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

AEC:

Automatic exposure control

BSS:

Basic safety standards

CI:

Clinical indication

CT:

Computed tomography

CTDI:

Computed Tomography Dose Index

CTDIvol,p:

Average Volume Computed Tomography Dose Index for multiphase CT

CTDIvol:

Volumetric Computed Tomography Dose Index

DLP:

Dose length product

DLPp:

Dose length product (DLP) per phase

DLPt:

Total DLP

DRL:

Diagnostic reference levels

EAP:

External Advisory Panel

EUCLID:

European Study on Clinical Diagnostic Reference Levels for X-ray Medical Imaging

ICRP:

International Commission of Radiological Protection

IDL:

Interactive Data Language

REDCap:

Research Electronic Data Capture

SAS:

Statistical Analysis System

References

  1. 1.

    Mazonakis M, Damilakis J (2016) Computed tomography: what and how does it measure? Eur J Radiol 85(8):1499–1504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Revel MP, Petrover D, Hernigou A, Lefort C, Meyer G, Frija G (2005) Diagnosing pulmonary embolism with four-detector row helical CT: prospective evaluation of 216 outpatients and inpatients. Radiology 234(1):265–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Flohr T (2016) 40 years of computed tomography - a retrospect and current developments. Z Med Phys 26(3):195–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ginat DT, Gupta R (2014) Advances in computed tomography imaging technology. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 16:431–453

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Runge VM, Marquez H, Andreisek G, Valavanis A, Alkadhi H (2015) Recent technological advances in computed tomography and the clinical impact therein. Invest Radiol 50(2):1191–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Goh Y, Dan YY, Chua W, Jagmohan P, Lee JK, Thian YL (2018) Diagnostic utility of whole body CT scanning in patients with unexplained weight loss. PLoS One 13(7):e0200686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kashani H, Wright G, Ursani A, Liu G, Hashemi M, Paul N (2019) Restricting motion effects in CT coronary angiography. Br J Radiol 92(1103):20190384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Papadakis AE, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J (2014) Automatic exposure control in CT: the effect of patient size, anatomical region and prescribed modulation strength on tube current and image quality. Eur Radiol 24(10):2520–2531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Papadakis AE, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J (2020) The effect of heart rate, vessel angulation and acquisition protocol on the estimation accuracy of calcified artery stenosis in dual energy cardiac CT: a phantom study. Phys Med 70:208–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Willemink MJ, Noël PB (2019) The evolution of image reconstruction for CT-from filtered back projection to artificial intelligence. Eur Radiol 29(5):2185–2195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Fu B, Wang G, Wu M et al (2020) Influence of CT effective dose and convolution kernel on the detection of pulmonary nodules in different artificial intelligence software systems: a phantom study. Eur J Radiol 126:108928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lell MM, Wildberger JE, Alkadhi H, Damilakis J, Kachelriess M (2015) Evolution in computed tomography: the battle for speed and dose. Invest Radiol 50(9):629–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Salerno S, Laghi A, Cantone MC, Sartori P, Pinto A, Frija G (2019) Overdiagnosis and overimaging: an ethical issue for radiological protection. Radiol Med 124(8):714–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Tsapaki V, Rehani M (2007) Dose management in CT facility. Biomed Imaging Interv J 3(2):e43

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Tsapaki V, Rehani M, Saini S (2010) Radiation safety in abdominal computed tomography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 31(1):29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    https://www.imagewisely.org/ Last assessed 15th Nov 2020

  17. 17.

    Gershan V, Homayounieh F, Singh R et al (2020) CT protocols and radiation doses for hematuria and urinary stones: comparing practices in 20 countries. Eur J Radiol 126:108923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fitton I, Revel MP, Burgel PR et al (2019) Cumulative radiation dose after lung transplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis. Diagn Interv Imaging 100(5):287–294

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/. Last assessed 15th Nov 2020

  20. 20.

    Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources. International Basic Safety Standards General Safety Requirements International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3, Vienna, 2014

  21. 21.

    European Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom on basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. OJ of the EU. L13; 57: 1-73 (2014)

  22. 22.

    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1996) Radiological protection and safety in medicine ICRP Publication 73 Ann. ICRP 26 (2)

  23. 23.

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

  24. 24.

    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2017) Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. ICRP Publication 135 Ann. ICR 46 (1)

  25. 25.

    Simeonov G (2015) European activities in radiation protection in medicine. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 165:34–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Radiation Protection Report 180 (2014) Medical radiation exposure of the European population, European Union, 2014

  27. 27.

    Kanal K, Butler P, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs P, Morin P (2017) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 284(1):120–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    European Study on Clinical Diagnostic Reference Levels for X-ray Medical Imaging. EC Tender Contract N° ENER/2017/NUCL/SI2.759174. http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/euclid Last assessed 15th Nov 2020

  29. 29.

    https://www.project-redcap.org/. Last assessed 15th Nov 2020

  30. 30.

    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2012) Quality Assurance Programme for Computed Tomography: Diagnostic and Therapy Applications, Human Health Series No. 19, IAEA, Vienna

  31. 31.

    Oldenburg D, Yu S, Luong J et al (2020) Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for Computed Tomography for EUCLID (European Study on Clinical DRLs) Defined Clinical Indications: Data from a Multinational Dose Registry. Radiological Society of North America 2019 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, December 1 - December 6, 2019, Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2019/19006658.html Last assessed 15th Nov 2020

  32. 32.

    Habib Geryes B, Hornbeck A, Jarrige V, Pierrat N, Ducou Le Pointe H, Dreuil S (2019) Patient dose evaluation in computed tomography: a French national study based on clinical indications. Phys Med 61:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Meeson S, Golding SJ (2014) Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK – 2011 Review Public Health England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349188/PHE_CRCE_013.pdf Last assessed 15th Nov 2020

  34. 34.

    Schegerer AA, Nagel HD, Stamm G, Adam G, Brix G (2017) Current CT practice in Germany: results and implications of a nationwide survey. Eur J Radiol 90:114–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of hospital data managers without who establishment of EUCLID DRLs would not have been possible. Also the support of representatives of national authorities, professional societies, and European and International organizations is also acknowledged.

Funding

The EUCLID project was financially supported by the grant ENER/2017/NUCL/SI2.759174 of the European Commission.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginia Tsapaki.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor John Damilakis.

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 complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained if necessary within the institution.

Methodology

• multicenter study

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsapaki, V., Damilakis, J., Paulo, G. et al. CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications: results of a large-scale European survey. Eur Radiol 31, 4459–4469 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07652-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patient safety
  • Radiation exposure
  • Tomography scanners, X-ray computed