Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Paediatric CT reference doses based on weight and CT dosimetry phantom size: local experience using a 64-slice CT scanner

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Previously published dose reference level (DRL) values may no longer be applicable due to technological advancement. New Australian legislation recommends that local DRLs (LDRLs) are established to monitor the performance and dose of CT examinations.

Objective

To present paediatric DRL values, in a new clinically applicable format, based on weight and referenced to both the 16-cm- and 32-cm-diameter CT dosimetry phantom sizes. To demonstrate local experience in reporting DRLs in this manner and compare these LDRL values with other published paediatric DRL data.

Materials and methods

A retrospective statistical analysis of dose indices was performed on 1382 CT examinations. The mean CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) are reported from display data on the Toshiba Aquilion 64 scanner (Toshiba Medical, Tochigi, Japan).

Results

LDRLs were compiled based on weight and the two CT dosimetry reference phantoms for torso examinations, and for the 16-cm-diameter CT dosimetry phantom for head examinations.

Conclusion

LDRLs were compiled for the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) Brisbane for reference by clinicians during routine clinical practice. These are compared to other published DRLs as a quality measure.

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

References

  1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Colang JE, Killion JB, Vano E (2007) Patient dose from CT: a literature review. Radiol Technol 79:17–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Slovis TL, Berdon WE, Hall EJ (2003) Section 1. Effects of radiation on children. In: Kuhn JP, Slovis TL, Haller JO (eds) Caffey’s pediatric diagnostic imaging, 10th edn. Pennsylvania, Mosby, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner DJ (2002) Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol 32:228–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vock P (2005) CT dose reduction in children. Eur Radiol 15:2330–2340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (2008) Radiation Protection Series No. 14, Code of Practice: Radiation Protection in the Medical Applications of Ionizing Radiation. Available via http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps14.pdf Accessed 21 June 2008

  8. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (2008) Radiation Protection Series No. 14.1, Safety Guide: Radiation Protection in Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. Available via http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps14_1.pdf Accessed 25 May 2008

  9. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA et al (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Verdun FR, Gutierrez D, Vader JP et al (2008) CT radiation dose in children: a survey to establish age-based diagnostic reference levels in Switzerland. Eur Radiol 18:1980–1986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shrimpton PC, Wall BF (2000) Reference doses for paediatric computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 90:249–252

    Google Scholar 

  12. Frush DP, Soden B, Frush KS et al (2002) Improved pediatric multidetector body CT using a size-based color-coded format. AJR 18:721–726

    Google Scholar 

  13. Singh S, Kalra M, Moore MA et al (2009) Dose reduction and compliance with pediatric CT protocols adapted to patient size, clinical indication, and number of prior studies. Radiology 252:200–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. AuntMinnie.com staff writers (2009) ARRS study: Child’s body shape can reduce CT dose. Available at http://www.auntminnie.com/print/print.asp?sec=sup&sub=ped&pag=dis&ItemId=855 Accessed 13 June 2009

  15. McCollough C, Cody D, Edyvean S et al (2008) The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. AAPM report No. 96. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Maryland, pp 1–28

  16. Miyazaki O, Horiuchi T, Masaki H et al (2008) Estimation of adaptive computed tomography dose index based on body weight in pediatric patients. Radiat Med 26:98–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nagel HD, Galanski M, Hidajat N et al (2002) Radiation exposure in computed tomography: fundamentals, influencing parameters, dose assessment, optimisation, scanner data, terminology, 4th edn. CTB Publications, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  18. European Commission (1999) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels. Available at http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/index.htm Accessed 3 August 2006

  19. Tinning K, Acworth J (2007) Make your best guess: an updated method for paediatric weight estimation in emergencies. Emerg Med Australas 19:528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Croarkin C, Tobias P (2006) Engineering statistics handbook, 2nd version. National Institute of Standards and Technology Available at http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/ Accessed 9 May 2009

  21. Chapple CL, Willis S, Frame J (2002) Effective dose in paediatric computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 47:107–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Frush DP et al (2009) Image gently vendor summit: working together for better estimates of pediatric radiation dose from CT. AJR 192:1169–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas KE, Wang B (2008) Age-specific effective doses for pediatric MSCT examinations at a large children’s hospital using DLP conversion coefficients: a simple estimation method. Pediatr Radiol 38:645–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Alliance for radiation safety in pediatric imaging. Available at http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig/ Accessed: October 14 2008

  25. Goske K, Applegate K, Boylan J et al (2008) Image Gently (SM): a national education and communication campaign in radiology using the science of social marketing. J Am Coll Radiol 5:1200–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brisse H, Aubert B (2009) CT exposure from pediatric MDCT: results from the 2007–2008 SFIPP/IRSN survey. J Radiol 90:207–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shrimpton PC (2004) Assessment of patient dose in CT. Report NRPB-PE/1/2004. NRPB, Chilton. Also published as Appendix C of the 2004 CT quality criteria (MSCT, 2004) at http://www.msct.eu/CT_Quality_Criteria.htm Accessed December 2006

  28. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA et al (2005) National survey of doses from CT in the UK—2003 review. Report NRPB—W67, NRPB Publications. Available at http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/index.htm

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Imaging, Royal Children Hospital, Level 2, Foundation Building, Herston Rd, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, 4029, Australia

    Debbie J. Watson & Kerry S. Coakley

Authors
  1. Debbie J. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerry S. Coakley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debbie J. Watson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Watson, D.J., Coakley, K.S. Paediatric CT reference doses based on weight and CT dosimetry phantom size: local experience using a 64-slice CT scanner. Pediatr Radiol 40, 693–703 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1469-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1469-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation