Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-05-2021 | Computed Tomography | Interventional

Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention

Authors: Ronald S. Arellano, Kai Yang, Madan M. Rehani

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2021

Abstract

Objective

To identify a patient cohort who received ≥ 100 mSv during a single computed tomography (CT)-guided intervention and analyze clinical information.

Materials and methods

Using the dose-tracking platform Radimetrics that collects data from all CT scanners in a single hospital, a patient-level search was performed retrospectively by setting a threshold effective dose (E) of 100 mSv for the period from January 2013 to December 2017. Patients who received ≥ 100 mSv in a single day during a single CT-guided intervention were then identified. Procedure types were identified, and medical records were reviewed up to January 2020 to identify patients who developed short- and/or medium-term (up to 8 years) medical consequences.

Results

Of 8952 patients with 100 mSv+, there were 33 patients who underwent 37 CT-guided interventions each resulting in ≥ 100 mSv. Procedures included ablations (15), myelograms (8), drainages (7), biopsies (6), and other (1). The dose for individual procedures was 100.2 to 235.5 mSv with mean and median of 125.7 mSv and 111.8 mSv, respectively. Six patients (18 %) were less than 50 years of age. During the study period of 0.2 to 7 years, there were no deterministic or stochastic consequences identified in this study cohort.

Conclusions

While infrequent, CT-guided interventions may result in a single procedure dose of ≥ 100 mSv. Awareness of the possibility of such high doses and potential for long-term deleterious effects, especially in younger patients, and consideration of alternative imaging guidance and/or further dose optimization should be strongly considered whenever feasible.

Key Points

• Although not so frequent, CT-guided interventions may result in a single procedure dose of ≥ 100 mSv

• Procedures with potential for high dose includes ablations, myelograms, drainages, and biopsies

Charalel RA, McGinty G, Brant-Zawadzki M et al (2015) Interventional radiology delivers high-value health care and is an Imaging 3.0 vanguard. J Am Coll Radiol 12:501–506CrossRef

Mettler FA, Mahesh M, Bhargavan-Chatfield M et al (2020) Patient exposure from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures in the United States: procedure volume and effective dose for the period 2006-2016. Radiology 295:418–427CrossRef

Tsapaki V, Balter S, Cousins C et al (2018) The International Atomic Energy Agency action plan on radiation protection of patients and staff in interventional procedures: achieving change in practice. Phys Med 52:56–64

Rehani MM (2013) Challenges in radiation protection of patients for the 21st century. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(4):762–764. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10244CrossRefPubMed

Rehani MM, Vano E, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Kleiman NJ (2011) Radiation and cataract. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 147:300–304CrossRef

Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ (2010) Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology 254:326–341CrossRef

Jaschke W, Bartal G, Martin CJ, Vano E (2020) Unintended and accidental exposures, significant dose events and trigger levels in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02517-2

Liu B, Hirsch JA, Li X et al (2019) Radiation dose monitoring for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: effect on patient radiation exposure. Radiology 290:744–749CrossRef

Kostova-Lefterova D, Vassileva J, Rehani MM (2017) Lessons from two cases of radiation induced skin injuries in fluoroscopic procedures in Bulgaria. J Radiol Prot 37:938–946CrossRef

10.

Rehani MM, Berris T (2012) International Atomic Energy Agency study with referring physicians on patient radiation exposure and its tracking: a prospective survey using a web-based questionnaire. BMJ Open 2(5):e001425. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001425CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505CrossRef

12.

Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Brambilla M, Marano G, Dominietto M, Cotroneo AR, Carriero A (2004) Patient radiation doses and references levels in interventional radiology. Radiol Med 107:408–418PubMed

14.

Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263CrossRef

15.

Leng S, Christner JA, Carlson SK et al (2011) Radiation dose levels for interventional CT procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W97–W103CrossRef

16.

Rehani MM, Yang K, Melick ER et al (2020) Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude. Eur Radiol 30:1828–1836CrossRef

17.

National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (2018) Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear-non threshold model and radiation protection. NCRP Commentary No. 27. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP

18.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP Publication 103 37(2–4):1–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003

19.

Yang K, Ganguli S, DeLorenzo MC, Zheng H, Li X, Liu B (2018) Procedure-specific CT dose and utilization factors for CT-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 289:150–157CrossRef

20.

Jones AK, Dixon RG, Collins JD, Walser EM, Nikolic B (2018) Society OIRHASC. Best practice guidelines for CT-guided interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 29:518–519CrossRef

21.

Li X, Yang K, Liu B (2019) Exam-level dose monitoring in CT: quality metric consideration for multiple series acquisitions. Med Phys 46:1575–1580CrossRef

22.

Rehani MM, Melick ER, Alvi RM et al (2020) Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness. Eur Radiol 30:1839–1846CrossRef

23.

Yang K, Li Z, Li X, Liu B (2019) Characterization of dynamic collimation mechanisms for helical CT scans with direct measurements. Phys Med Biol 64:215006CrossRef

24.

Carlson SK, Felmlee JP, Bender CE et al (2005) CT fluoroscopy-guided biopsy of the lung or upper abdomen with a breath-hold monitoring and feedback system: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Radiology 237:701–708CrossRef

25.

Artner J, Cakir B, Reichel H, Lattig F (2012) Radiation dose reduction in CT-guided sacroiliac joint injections to levels of pulsed fluoroscopy: a comparative study with technical considerations. J Pain Res 5:265–269CrossRef

26.

Kloeckner R, dos Santos DP, Schneider J, Kara L, Dueber C, Pitton MB (2013) Radiation exposure in CT-guided interventions. Eur J Radiol 82:2253–2257CrossRef

27.

McCarthy CJ, Kilcoyne A, Li X et al (2018) Radiation dose and risk estimates of CT-guided percutaneous liver ablations and factors associated with dose reduction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41:1935–1942CrossRef

28.

Eisenberg JD, Gervais DA, Singh S et al (2015) Radiation exposure from CT-guided ablation of renal masses: effects on life expectancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:335–342CrossRef

29.

Crocetti L, Lencioni R, Debeni S, See TC, Pina CD, Bartolozzi C (2008) Targeting liver lesions for radiofrequency ablation: an experimental feasibility study using a CT-US fusion imaging system. Invest Radiol 43:33–39CrossRef

30.

Rehani MM, Hauptmann M (2020) Estimates of the number of patients with high cumulative doses through recurrent CT exams in 35 OECD countries. Phys Med 76:173–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.07.014CrossRefPubMed

Title: Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention
Authors: Ronald S. Arellano
Kai Yang
Madan M. Rehani
Publication date: 01-05-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Radiation Protection
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07458-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

How does liver steatosis affect diagnostic performance of 2D-SWE.SSI: assessment from aspects of steatosis degree and pathological types

Development of image quality related reference doses called acceptable quality doses (AQD) in paediatric CT exams in Qatar

MRI-guided breast biopsy based on diffusion-weighted imaging: a feasibility study

A preliminary investigation of radiomics differences between ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms

In vivo 3D tomography of the lumbar spine using a twin robotic X-ray system: quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the lumbar neural foramina in supine and upright position

Multiparametric MRI-based radiomics signature for preoperative estimation of tumor-stroma ratio in rectal cancer