Top

Published in:

01-03-2016

Imaging wisely: patient safety in CT

Authors: Zheng Feng Lu, Stephen Thomas

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 3/2016

Abstract

The past decade has seen a significant growth in diagnostic CT imaging as a direct result of the clinical value provided by CT imaging. At the same time, many new techniques and resources are now available to make CT imaging safe. This article presents the basics of CT dosimetry and their usage in clinical practices, methods to implement CT dose reduction, followed by a summary of legislation, and guidelines related to patient safety in diagnostic CT imaging. Also, CT radiation dose diagnostic reference levels from published regional and national surveys are reviewed and applied in a CT dose tracking and monitoring program.

IMV—Medical Information Division (2014) CT Market Outlook Report [Internet] 2014. http://www.imvinfo.com/index.aspx?sec=ct&sub=dis&itemid=200081. Accessed Oct 8 2015

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2009) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report No. 160 ed. Bethesda, MD: NCRP

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1987) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report No. 93 ed. Bethesda, MD: NCRP

Kalender WA (2014) Dose in X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 59(3):R129–R150CrossRefPubMed

American College of Radiology (2015) The ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® [Internet]. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria/About-AC. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

The Alliance for Radiation in Pediatric Imaging (2015) Image Gently Campaign [Internet]. http://www.imagegently.org/. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

American College of Radiology (2015) Image Wisely Campaign [Internet]. http://www.imagewisely.org/. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

Jucius RA, Kambic GX (1977) Radiation dosimetry in computed tomography. Appl Opt Instrum Eng Med. 127:286–295

Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC (1981) A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 8(4):488–495CrossRefPubMed

10.

FDA (1984) Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, 21 CFR Part 1020.33, Government Printing Office. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=1020.33. Accessed 9 Mar 2016

11.

Nickoloff EL, Dutta AK, Lu ZF (2003) Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. Med Phys 30(3):395–402CrossRefPubMed

12.

Boone J, Strauss K, Cody D, McCollough C, McNitt-Gray M, Toth T (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT exams: Report of AAPM Task Group 204

13.

McCollough C, Bakalyar DM, Bostani M, Brady S, Boedeker K, Boone JM, et al. (2014) Use of water equivalent diameter for calculating patient size and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in CT: the Report of AAPM Task Group 220

14.

O’Connell T, Chang D, Aldrich JE, Mayo JR (2010) Creating an unified patient radiation dose tracking system. Chicago: Radiological Society of North America. https://www.rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science_and_Education/Quality/3062-OConnell.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2016

15.

Jones DG, Shrimpton PC (1991) Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 3: normalised organ doses calculated using monte carlo techniques. Chilton

16.

The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) ICRP Publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37 (2–4), ICRP

17.

Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257(1):158–166CrossRefPubMed

18.

Blitman NM, Anwar M, Brady KB, Taragin BH, Freeman K (2015) Value of focused appendicitis ultrasound and alvarado score in predicting appendicitis in children: Can we reduce the use of CT? Am J Roentgenol 204(6):W707–W712CrossRef

19.

Spalluto LB, Woodfield CA, DeBenedectis CM, Lazarus E (2012) MR imaging evaluation of abdominal pain during pregnancy: appendicitis and other nonobstetric causes. RadioGraphics 32(2):317–334CrossRefPubMed

20.

Patz EF Jr, Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, et al. (1999) Lung cancer staging and management: comparison of contrast-enhanced and nonenhanced helical CT of the thorax. Radiology 212(1):56–60CrossRefPubMed

21.

Levin DC, Parker L, Halpern EJ, Rao VM (2014) Are combined CT scans of the thorax being overused? J Am Coll Radiol 11(8):788–790CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sadigh G, Applegate KE, Baumgarten DA (2014) Comparative accuracy of intravenous contrast-enhanced CT versus noncontrast CT plus intravenous contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterization of patients with hypervascular liver metastases: a critically appraised topic. Acad Radiol 21(1):113–125CrossRefPubMed

23.

Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA, et al. (2003) Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 229(1):81–90CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. (2004) Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 233(3):649–657CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bae KT (2010) Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology 256(1):32–61CrossRefPubMed

26.

Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2015) Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: technical concepts and clinical implementation. Am J Roentgenol 205(1):W19–W31CrossRef

27.

Prepublication requirements: revised requirements for diagnostic imaging services, issued January 9, 2015, effective July 1, 2015. The Joint Commission 2015.

28.

Cody DD, Pfeiffer D, McNitt-Gray MF, Ruckdeschel TG, Strauss KJ (2012) ACR computed tomography quality control manual. American College of Radiology

29.

Shih G, Lu ZF, Zabih R, et al. (2011) Automated framework for digital radiation dose index reporting from CT dose reports. Am J Roentgenol 197(5):1170–1174CrossRef

30.

Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance. [Internet] (2015) Accessed 8 Oct 2015. http://www.medicalimaging.org/policy-and-positions/mita-smart-dose/

31.

Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (2014) 113th Congress (2013–2014); 2014 Public Law No: 113–93. Accessed 8 Oct 2015. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4302

32.

Radiation protection (1997) Protection from potential exposures: application to selected radiation sources. A report of a task group of the International Commission on Radiation Protection. Ann ICRP 27(2):1–61

33.

Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Meeson S, Golding SJ, Public Health E, Centre for Radiation C, et al. (2014) Doses from computer tomography (CT) examinations in the UK, 2011 review

34.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2012) Reference levels and achievable doses in medical and dental imaging: recommendations for the United States. Report No. 172. Bethesda: NCRP

35.

Christianson O, Li X, Frush D, Samei E (2012) Automated size-specific CT dose monitoring program: assessing variability in CT dose. Med Phys 39(11):7131–7139CrossRefPubMed

36.

American College of Radiology (2015) Dose index registry [Internet]. http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/national-radiology-data-registry/dose-index-registry. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

37.

Brink JA, Miller DL (2015) U.S. national diagnostic reference levels: closing the gap. Radiology 277(1):3–6CrossRefPubMed

38.

Escalon JG, Chatfield MB, Sengupta D, Loftus ML (2015) Dose length products for the 10 most commonly ordered CT examinations in adults: analysis of three years of the ACR dose index registry. J Am Coll Radiol 12(8):815–823CrossRefPubMed

39.

Radiological Society of North American (2015) RadLex Playbook [Internet]. https://www.rsna.org/RadLex_Playbook.aspx. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

40.

Smith-Bindman R, Moghadassi M, Wilson N, et al. (2015) Radiation doses in consecutive CT examinations from five University of California Medical Centers. Radiology 277(1):134–141CrossRefPubMed

41.

MacGregor K, Li I, Dowdell T, Gray BG (2015) Identifying institutional diagnostic reference levels for CT with radiation dose index monitoring software. Radiology 276(2):507–517CrossRefPubMed

42.

McCollough CH, Bushberg JT, Fletcher JG, Eckel LJ (2015) Answers to Common Questions About the Use and Safety of CT Scans. Mayo Clin Proc 90(10):1380–1392CrossRefPubMed

43.

Health Physics Society (1996) Position statement of the Health Physics Society: radiation risk in perspective [Internet]. Accessed https://hps.org/documents/risk_ps010-2.pdf

44.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2012) Uncertainties in the estimation of radiation risks and probability of disease causation. Report No. 171. Bethesda, MD: NCRP

45.

International Organization for Medical Physics (2013) Predictions of induced cancers and cancer deaths in a population of patients exposed to low doses (<100 mSv) of ionizing radiation during medical imaging procedures. [Internet], IOMP. http://www.iomp.org/sites/default/files/policy_statement_3.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

46.

American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) Position statement on radiation risks from medical imaging procedures [Internet]. http://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=318&type=PP. Accessed 8 Oct 2015

Title: Imaging wisely: patient safety in CT
Authors: Zheng Feng Lu
Stephen Thomas
Publication date: 01-03-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Abdominal Radiology / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0676-0

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

The “winking owl” sign

The actionable imaging report

Applications of process improvement techniques to improve workflow in abdominal imaging

Quality assurance methodology and applications to abdominal imaging PQI

Comparison of 11C-4DST and 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for advanced renal cell carcinoma: preliminary study

Added value of diffusion-weighted imaging to MR cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of bile duct dilatations

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials