Radiation dose exposure in patients affected by lymphoma undergoing repeat CT examinations: how to manage the radiation dose variability
- 155 Downloads
To assess the variability of radiation dose exposure in patients affected by lymphoma undergoing repeat CT (computed tomography) examinations and to evaluate the influence of different scan parameters on the overall radiation dose.
Materials and methods
A series of 34 patients (12 men and 22 women with a median age of 34.4 years) with lymphoma, after the initial staging CT underwent repeat follow-up CT examinations. For each patient and each repeat examination, age, sex, use of AEC system (Automated Exposure Control, i.e. current modulation), scan length, kV value, number of acquired scans (i.e. number of phases), abdominal size diameter and dose length product (DLP) were recorded. The radiation dose of just one venous phase was singled out from the DLP of the entire examination. All scan data were retrieved by our PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) by means of a dose monitoring software.
Among the variables we considered, no significant difference of radiation dose was observed among patients of different ages nor concerning tube voltage. On the contrary the dose delivered to the patients varied depending on sex, scan length and usage of AEC. No significant difference was observed depending on the behaviour of technologists, while radiologists’ choices had indirectly an impact on the radiation dose due to the different number of scans requested by each of them.
Our results demonstrate that patients affected by lymphoma who undergo repeat whole body CT scanning may receive unnecessary overexposure. We quantified and analyzed the most relevant variables in order to provide a useful tool to manage properly CT dose variability, estimating the amount of additional radiation dose for every single significant variable. Additional scans, incorrect scan length and incorrect usage of AEC system are the most relevant cause of patient radiation exposure.
KeywordsComputed tomography Radiation exposure Lymphoma Dose optimization Surveillance Radioprotection
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 5.Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, Greenlee RT, Weinmann S, Solberg LI, Feigelson HS, Roblin D, Flynn MJ, Vanneman N, Smith-Bindman R (2013) The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr 167(8):700–707CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 6.Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, Giles GG, Wallace AB, Anderson PR, Guiver TA, McGale P, Cain TM, Dowty JG, Bickerstaffe AC, Darby SC (2013) Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 21(346):f2360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.http://www.eurosafeimaging.org. Accessed 5 Aug 2017
- 8.http://www.imagegently.org. Accessed 5 Aug 2017
- 9.Council Directive 59/2013/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionizing radiation. Off J Eur Union L 13, Vol 57, 17 January 2014Google Scholar
- 14.Lynch RC, Zelenetz AD, Armitage JO et al (2014) Surveillance imaging for lymphoma: pros and cons. ASCO Educ Book p e388–e395Google Scholar
- 15.Paolicchi F, Faggioni L, Bastiani L, Molinaro S, Caramella D, Bartolozzi C (2013) Real practice radiation dose and dosimetric impact of radiological staff training in body CT examinations. Insights Imagin 4(2):239–244Google Scholar
- 16.Paolicchi F, Faggioni L, Bastiani L, Molinaro S, Caramella D, Bartolozzi C (2014) Optimizing the balance between radiation dose and image quality in pediatric head CT: findings before and after intensive radiological staff training. AJR 202:1–7Google Scholar
- 18.Paolicchi F, Miniati F, Bastiani L, Faggioni L, Ciaramella A, Creonti I, Sottocornola C, Dionisi C, Caramella D (2016) Assessment of radiation protection awareness and knowledge about radiological examination doses among Italian radiographers. Insights Imagin 7(2):233–242Google Scholar
- 20.Zuur AF, Hilbe JM, Leno EN (2013) Beginner’s guide to GLM and GLMM with R. Highland Statistics, NewburghGoogle Scholar
- 21.Jewell NP (2003) Statistics for epidemiology, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, BocaRatonGoogle Scholar
- 22.R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 20 July 2017
- 23.Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R packageversion 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed 20 July 2017
- 24.Angelo Canty and Brian Ripley (2016) Boot: bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R package version 1.3-18Google Scholar
- 26.Lynch RC, Zelenetz AD, Armitage JO, Carson KR (2014) Surveillance imaging for lymphoma: pros and cons. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book e388–e395. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2014.34.e388
- 30.Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, Greenlee RT, Weinmann S, Solberg LI, Feigelson HS, Roblin D, Flynn MJ, Vanneman N, Smith-Bindman R (2013) The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr 167(8):700–707CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 31.Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, Howe NL, Ronckers CM, Rajaraman P, Sir Craft AW, Parker L, Berrington de González A (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380(9840):499–505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 38.Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, Berrington de González A, Miglioretti DL (2009) Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 169(22):2078–2086CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar