Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 123, Issue 3, pp 185–190 | Cite as

Unindicated multiphase CT scans in non-traumatic abdominal emergencies for women of reproductive age: a significant source of unnecessary exposure

  • Caterina Giannitto
  • Mauro Campoleoni
  • Sara Maccagnoni
  • Alessio Salvatore Angileri
  • Maria Carmela Grimaldi
  • Nino Giannitto
  • Francesca De Piano
  • Eleonora Ancona
  • Pietro Raimondo Biondetti
  • Andrea Alessandro Esposito
COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the frequency of unindicated CT phases and the resultant excess of absorbed radiation doses to the uterus and ovaries in women of reproductive age who have undergone CT for non-traumatic abdomino-pelvic emergencies.

Materials and methods

We reviewed all abdomino-pelvic CT examinations in women of reproductive age (40 years or less), between 1 June 2012 and 31 January 2015. We evaluated the appropriateness of each CT phase on the basis of clinical indications, according to ACR appropriateness criteria and evidence-based data from the literature. The doses to uterus and ovaries for each phase were calculated with the CTEXPO software, taking into consideration the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) after measuring the size of every single patient.

Results

The final cohort was composed of 76 female patients with an average age of 30 (from 19 to 40 years). In total, 197 CT phases were performed with an average of 2.6 phases per patient. Out of these, 93 (47%) were unindicated with an average of 1.2 inappropriate phases per patient. Unindicated scans were most frequent for appendicitis and unlocalized abdominal pain. The excesses of mean radiation doses to the uterus and ovaries due to unindicated phases were, respectively, of 38 and 33 mSv per patient.

Conclusion

In our experience, unindicated additional CT phases were numerous with a significant excess radiation dose without an associated clinical benefit. This excess of radiation could have been avoided by widespread adoption of the ACR appropriateness criteria and evidence-based data from the literature.

Keywords

Emergency Computed tomography Women Radiation protection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winslow JE, Hinshaw JW, Hughes MJ, Williams RC, Bozeman WP (2008) Quantitative assessment of diagnostic radiation doses in adult blunt trauma patients. Ann Emerg Med 52:93–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffey RT, Sodickson A (2009) Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT. AJR 192:887–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT et al (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13761–13766CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN et al (2013) Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31:2500–2510CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM et al (2011) National trends in CT use in the emergency department: 1995–2007. Radiology 258:164–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pierce DA, Preston DL (2000) Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 154:178–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muirhead CR (2003) Studies on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, and their use in estimating radiation risks. Radiat Prot Dosim 104:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mezrich R (2008) Are CT scans carcinogenic? J Am Coll Radiol 5:691–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn JE, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzales A (2009) Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 251:6–12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adriaens I, Smitz J, Jacquet P (2009) The current knowledge on radiosensitivity of ovarian follicle development stages. Hum Reprod Update 15:359–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brix G, Nissen-Meyer S, Lechel U et al (2009) Radiation exposures of cancer patients from medical X-rays: how relevant are they for individual patients and population exposure? Eur J Radiol 72:342–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ICRP (1991) 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21(1–3)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greess H, Nomayr A, Wolf H et al (2002) Dose reduction in CT examinations of children by an attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current (CARE dose). Eur Radiol 12:1571–1576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American College of Radiology, ACR appropriateness criteria. http://acr.org/ac. Accessed Sept 2015
  16. 16.
    Urban BA, Fishman EK (2000) Tailored helical CT evaluation of acute abdomen. Radiographics 20:725–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson PT, Fishman EK (2013) Routine use of precontrast and delayed acquisitions in abdominal CT: time for change. Abdom Imaging 38:215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations, (2011) http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_204.pd. Accessed 9 Feb 2014
  19. 19.
    Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-expo-a novel program for dose evaluation in CT. Rofo 174:1570–1576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    (2009) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160. BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bogdanich W (2010) After stroke scans, patients face serious health risks. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html. Accessed 25 Sept 2015
  22. 22.
    Critchley HO, Wallace WH (2005) Impact of cancer treatment on uterine function. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 34:64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Horning SJ, Hoppe RT, Kaplan HS, Rosenberg SA (1981) Female reproductive potential after treatment for Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 23:1377–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Homas PRM, Winstanly D, Peckham MJ, Austin DE, Murray MAF, Jacobs HS (1976) Reproductive and endocrine function in patients with Hodgkin’s disease: effects of oophoropexy and irradiation. Br J Cancer 33:226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dembo AJ, Thomas GM (1994) The ovary. In: Moss WT, Cox JT (eds) Radiation oncology: rationale, technique, results. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 712–733Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goodman TR, Amurao M (2012) Medical imaging radiation safety for the female patient: rationale and implementation. Radiographics 32:1829–1837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hall EJ (2009) Radiation biology for pediatric radiologists. Pediatr Radiol 39:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCollough CH, Schueler BA, Atwell TD et al (2007) Radiation exposure and pregnancy: when should we be concerned? Radiographics 27:909–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice (2004) ACOG Committee Opinion, Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 104:647–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caterina Giannitto
    • 1
  • Mauro Campoleoni
    • 2
  • Sara Maccagnoni
    • 1
  • Alessio Salvatore Angileri
    • 1
  • Maria Carmela Grimaldi
    • 1
  • Nino Giannitto
    • 3
  • Francesca De Piano
    • 1
  • Eleonora Ancona
    • 1
  • Pietro Raimondo Biondetti
    • 4
  • Andrea Alessandro Esposito
    • 4
  1. 1.Postgraduation School in RadiodiagnosticsUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Medical Phisic UnitFoundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Università di MessinaMessinaItaly
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyFoundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations