Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Computed Tomography | Original Article

Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications in computed tomography: a literature review

Authors: Graciano Paulo, John Damilakis, Virginia Tsapaki, Alexander A. Schegerer, Jacques Repussard, Werner Jaschke, Guy Frija, European Society of Radiology

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

In August 2017, the European Commission awarded the “European Study on Clinical Diagnostic Reference levels for X-ray Medical Imaging” project to the European Society of Radiology, to provide up-to-date Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications.

The aim of this work was to conduct an extensive literature review by analysing the most recent studies published and the data provided by the National Competent Authorities, to understand the current situation regarding Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications for computed tomography.

Results

The literature review has identified 23 papers with Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications for computed tomography from 15 countries; 12 of them from Europe.

A total of 28 clinical indications for 6 anatomical areas (head, cervical spine/neck, chest, abdomen, abdomen-pelvis, chest-abdomen-pelvis) have been identified.

Conclusions

In all the six anatomical areas for which Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications were found, a huge variation of computed tomography dose descriptor values was identified, providing evidence for a need to develop strategies to standardise and optimise computed tomography protocols.

(1997) Radiological protection and safety in medicine. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1996;26(2).

(2001) Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging: review and additional advice. Ann ICRP 31(3):33–52

Council of the European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom. Official Journal of the European Union 1997 p. 22–27.

Council of the European Union (2013) Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal of the European Union 2013 p. 1–73

Roch P, Célier D, Dessaud C, Etard C, Rehani MM (2019) Long-term experience and analysis of data on diagnostic reference levels: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Eur Radiol 30(2):1127–1136PubMedCrossRef

Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. ICRP Publication 135. Ann ICRP 46(1):1–144PubMedCrossRef

European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2018) Eurosafe imaging call for action. Available from: https://www.myesr.org/media/659

Bauhs JA, Vrieze TJ, Primak AN, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH (2008) CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. RadioGraphics. 28(1):245–253 Available from: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/rg.281075024PubMedCrossRef

McCullough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boone JM, McNitt-Gray MF (2011) CT dose index and patient dose. Radiology. 259(2):311–316CrossRef

10.

Danish Health Authority (2015) Ct Reference doser, Copenhagen

11.

Public Health England (2016) National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRLs), vol 11 Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diagnostic-radiology-national-diagnostic-reference-levels-ndrls/national-diagnostic-reference-levels-ndrls#fnref:2

12.

Schegerer AA, Nagel HD, Stamm G, Adam G, Brix G (2017) Current CT practice in Germany: Results and implications of a nationwide survey. Eur J Radiol. 90:114–128 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0720048X17300669PubMedCrossRef

13.

van der Molen AJ, Schilham A, Stoop P, Prokop M, Geleijns J (2013) A national survey on radiation dose in CT in The Netherlands. Insights Imaging. 4(3):383–390 Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13244-013-0253-9PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Wachabauer D, Röthlin F (2017) Aktualisierung der diagnostischen Referenzwerte für Österreich, Wien

15.

Habib Geryes B, Hornbeck A, Jarrige V, Pierrat N, Ducou Le Pointe H, Dreuil S (2019) Patient dose evaluation in computed tomography: A French national study based on clinical indications. Phys Medica 61:18–27 Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1120179719300808CrossRef

16.

MERU (2017) National survey on population dose from computed tomography 2017, Dublin

17.

Widmark A. (2018) Diagnostic reference level (DRL) in Norway 2017. Available from: https://www.dsa.no

18.

SRPA (2019) Diagnostic Reference Levels in the Swedish legislation. Available from: https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/en/

19.

Public Health England (2018) National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRLs): 15 November 2018 onwards. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diagnostic-radiology-national-diagnostic-reference-levels-ndrls/ndrl

20.

Schegerer A, Loose R, Heuser LJ, Brix G (2019) Diagnostic Reference Levels for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures in Germany: Update and Handling. Rofo. 191(08):739–751 Available from: http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-0824-7603PubMedCrossRef

21.

Treier R, Aroua A, Verdun FR, Samara E, Stuessi A, Trueb PR (2010) Patient doses in CT examinations in Switzerland: implementation of national diagnostic reference levels. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 142(2–4):244–254 Available from: http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/142/2-4/244.abstractPubMedCrossRef

22.

Castellano IA, Nicol ED, Bull RK, Roobottom CA, Williams MC, Harden SP (2017) A prospective national survey of coronary CT angiography radiation doses in the United Kingdom. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 11(4):268–273 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2017.05.002PubMedCrossRef

23.

Foley SJ, McEntee MF, Rainford LA (2012) Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland. Br J Radiol. 85(1018):1390–1397PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Fukushima Y, Tsushima Y, Takei H, Taketomi-Takahashi A, Otake H, Endo K (2012) Diagnostic reference level of computed tomography (CT) in Japan. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 151(1):51–57PubMedCrossRef

25.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F et al (2009) Estimated Radiation Dose Associated With Cardiac CT Angiography. JAMA 301(5):500–507 Available from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.2009.54PubMedCrossRef

26.

Japan Network for Research and Information on Medical Exposures (2015) Diagnostic Reference Levels Based on Latest Surveys in Japan — Japan DRLs 2015. Available via http://www.radher.jp/JRIME/report/DRLhoukokusyoEng.pdf.

27.

Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL (2017) U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Adult CT Examinations. Radiology 284(1):120–133 Available from: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2017161911PubMedCrossRef

28.

Mafalanka F, Etard C, Rehel JL et al (2015) Establishment of diagnostic reference levels in cardiac ct in france: A need for patient dose optimisation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 164(1–2):116–119PubMedCrossRef

29.

Palorini F, Origgi D, Granata C, Matranga D, Salerno S (2014) Adult exposures from MDCT including multiphase studies: First Italian nationwide survey. Eur Radiol. 24(2):469–483PubMedCrossRef

30.

STUK (2013) Reference levels for patient radiation exposure in computed tomography examinations of adults. Available via https://www.stuk.fi/documents/88234/1106801/decision-2-3020-13-23-5-2013-referencelevels-for-patient-radiation-exposure-in-computed-tomography-examinations-ofadults.pdf/71ee0d51-ff7b-49e7-9ceb-fee01d56454d.

31.

Salama DH, Vassileva J, Mahdaly G et al (2017) Establishing national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for computed tomography in Egypt. Phys Medica 39:16–24 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1120179717301679CrossRef

32.

NCS (2012) Diagnostische referentieniveaus in Nederland.

33.

Gershan V, Homayounieh F, Singh R et al (2020) CT protocols and radiation doses for hematuria and urinary stones: Comparing practices in 20 countries. Eur J Radiol 126:108923 Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108923PubMedCrossRef

34.

Smith-Bindman R, Wang Y, Chu P et al (2019) International variation in radiation dose for computed tomography examinations: Prospective cohort study. BMJ. 364:1–12

35.

De Mello-Amoedo CD, Martins AN, Tachibana A, Pinho DF, Baroni RH (2018) Comparison of radiation dose and image quality of abdominopelvic CT using iterative (AIDR 3D) and conventional reconstructions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 210(1):127–133PubMedCrossRef

36.

O’Neill S, Kavanagh RG, Carey BW, Moore N, Maher M, O’Connor OJ (2018) Using body mass index to estimate individualised patient radiation dose in abdominal computed tomography. Eur Radiol Exp 2(1):0–7CrossRef

Title: Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications in computed tomography: a literature review
Authors: Graciano Paulo
John Damilakis
Virginia Tsapaki
Alexander A. Schegerer
Jacques Repussard
Werner Jaschke
Guy Frija
European Society of Radiology
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00899-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Diagnostic Reference Levels based on clinical indications in computed tomography: a literature review

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

The effect of abolishing instructions to fast prior to contrast-enhanced CT on the incidence of acute adverse reactions

The added value of digital breast tomosynthesis in improving diagnostic performance of BI-RADS categorization of mammographically indeterminate breast lesions

Artefacts in contrast enhanced digital mammography: how can they affect diagnostic image quality and confuse clinical diagnosis?

Gyriform restricted diffusion in adults: looking beyond thrombo-occlusions

Performance indicators for radiation protection management: suggestions from the European Society of Radiology

Trends of interventional radiology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: the first 27 weeks in the eye of the storm