Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Results from a phantom based multi-centre paediatric computed tomography dose survey

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A computed tomography radiation dose survey was performed within our enterprise using three age-based paediatric phantoms representing a 1, 5 and 10 years old. Twenty-seven scanners were surveyed with volume computed tomography dose index and dose length product data collected for head, chest and abdomen-pelvis protocols at each age. Reconstruction method e.g. filtered back projection (FBP) or iterative (IR) was also recorded. About two-thirds of the 1 year old FBP chest scans exceeded the national Baby diagnostic reference level (DRL). A small number of scanners also exceeded the national Child DRL for the 1 and 5 years old phantoms. Only about half of the phantom protocols showed a difference of statistical significance between FBP and IR scanners. The results suggested the need for optimisation work at a number of sites. It was determined that the proposed local (i.e. enterprise-wide) DRLs are presented best in terms of weight or girth rather than age.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 380:499–505

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 346:f2360. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2360

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Strauss KJ, Frush DP, Goske MJ (2015) Image gently campaign: making a world of difference. Med Phy Int J 3:94–108

    Google Scholar 

  4. Australian National Paediatric Diagnostic Reference Levels for MDCT http://www.arpansa.gov.au/Services/NDRL/paediatric.cfm. Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  5. International Electrotechnical Commission (2012). IEC 60601-2-44 Ed. 3.1: medical electrical equipment—Part 2–44: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for computed tomography

  6. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc (2015). CRCPD Publication E-15-3: Nationwide evaluation of X-Ray trends (NEXT) tabulation and graphical summary of 2005–2006 survey of computed tomography. http://www.crcpd.org/Pubs/NEXT_docs/NEXT_CT2005-2006Tabulations&GraphicalSummary.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2016

  7. CIRS ATOM® Dosimetry Phantoms http://www.cirsinc.com/file/Products/701_706/701%20706%20ATOM%20PB%20110615.pdf Accessed 1 Dec 2015

  8. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1975) ICRP publication 23: report of the task group on reference man. Ann ICRP 23:1–480

    Google Scholar 

  9. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1992) ICRU report 48: phantoms and computational models in therapy. Diagnosis and Protection, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda MD

    Google Scholar 

  10. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2002) ICRP Publication 89: basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. Ann ICRP 32:1–277

    Google Scholar 

  11. Christy M, Eckerman KF (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources 1. Methods. ORNL/TM-8381/V1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge Tennessee

  12. http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/en/. Accessed 29 Feb 2016

  13. http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm. Accessed 29 Feb 2016

  14. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalendar WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) ICRP publication 103: the 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP 37:1–332

    Google Scholar 

  16. Irvine M, Ireland T (2014) Accuracy of system-displayed radiation dose metrics used for patient dosimetry and/or radiation dose surveys. doi:10.1594/ranzcr2014/R-0026

    Google Scholar 

  17. den Harder AM, Willemink MJ, Budde RPJ, Schilham AMR, Leiner T, de Jong PA (2015) Hybrid and model-based iterative reconstruction techniques for pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol 204:645–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jackson D, Atkin K, Bettenay F, Clark J, Ditchfield MR, Grimm JE, Linke R, Long G, Onikul E, Pereira J, Phillips M, Wilson F, Paul E, Goergen SK (2015) Paediatric CT dose: a multicentre audit of subspeciality practice in Australia and New Zealand. Eur Radiol 25:3109–3122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kleinman PL, Strauss KJ, Zurakowski Buckley KS, Taylor GA (2010) Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children’s hospital. Am J Roentgenol 194:1611–1619

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The paediatric phantoms were kindly made available by the Medical Imaging Department, Lady Cilento Childrens Hospital, Queensland Health (1 year old and 5 years old), and Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne (10 years old). We would also like to thank senior CT radiographers at each survey site for their assistance.

Funding

This study was partially funded by Pathology Queensland Study Education and Research Committee (Grant No. 4853), Health Support Queensland, Queensland Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomedical Technology Services, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia

    David L. Thiele & Sarah-Ellyana Aliuddin

  2. Australasian College and Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine, Mascot, NSW, Australia

    Mike Irvine

  3. Biomedical Technology Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia

    George P. McGill

Authors
  1. David L. Thiele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah-Ellyana Aliuddin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mike Irvine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. George P. McGill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Thiele.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thiele, D.L., Aliuddin, SE., Irvine, M. et al. Results from a phantom based multi-centre paediatric computed tomography dose survey. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 39, 885–893 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-016-0488-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-016-0488-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation