Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 5/2021

01-05-2021 | Computed Tomography | Original Article

Clinical concordance with Image Gently guidelines for pediatric computed tomography: a study across 663,417 CT scans at 53 clinical facilities

Authors: Taylor Brunton Smith, John Heil, Donald P. Frush, Ehsan Samei

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 5/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Managing patient radiation dose in pediatric computed tomography (CT) examinations is essential. Some organizations, most notably Image Gently, have suggested techniques to lower dose to pediatric patients and mitigate risk while maintaining image quality.

Objective

We sought to validate whether institutions are observing Image Gently guidelines in practice.

Materials and methods

Dose-relevant data from 663,417 abdomen-pelvis and chest CT scans were obtained from 53 facilities. Patients were assigned arbitrary age cohorts with a minimum size of n=12 patients in each age group, for statistical purposes. All pediatric (<19 years old) cohorts at a given facility were compared to the adult cohort by a Kruskal-Wallis test for each of the four scan parameters — (1) x-ray tube kilovoltage (kV), (2) tube-current-by-exposure-time product (tube mAs), (3) scan pitch and (4) tube rotation time — to assess whether the distribution of values in the pediatric cohorts differed from the adult cohort. The same was repeated with volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) to assess whether pediatric cohorts received less dose than adult cohorts. A P-value of <0.05 was deemed significant.

Results

Across the 150 pediatric cohorts, 134 had scan parameters that were more child-sized than their adult counterparts. In 128 of these 134 pediatric cohorts, the CTDIvol was less than the adult counterpart. In 111 of these 128 pediatric cohorts, the SSDE was less than the adult counterpart.

Conclusion

The study reaffirms that in practice, Image Gently’s suggestions of lowering tube mAs and peak kilovoltage are commonly employed and effective at reducing pediatric CT dose.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ et al (2009) Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 251:6–12CrossRef Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ et al (2009) Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 251:6–12CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL et al (1996) Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, part I. Cancer: 1950-1990. Radiat Res 146:AV61–AV87CrossRef Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL et al (1996) Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, part I. Cancer: 1950-1990. Radiat Res 146:AV61–AV87CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP 46:1–144CrossRef Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP 46:1–144CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Pierce DA, Vaeth M (2006) The shape of the cancer mortality dose-response curve for the A-bomb survivors. Radiat Res 126:36–42CrossRef Pierce DA, Vaeth M (2006) The shape of the cancer mortality dose-response curve for the A-bomb survivors. Radiat Res 126:36–42CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Slovis TL (2002) The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? Radiology 223:5–6CrossRef Slovis TL (2002) The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? Radiology 223:5–6CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP et al (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 231:393–398CrossRef Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP et al (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 231:393–398CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263CrossRef Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Brenner DJ (2002) Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol 32:228–231CrossRef Brenner DJ (2002) Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol 32:228–231CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hong J-Y, Han K, Jung J-H, Kim JS (2019) Association of exposure to diagnostic low-dose ionizing radiation with risk of cancer among youths in South Korea. JAMA Netw Open 2:e1910584CrossRef Hong J-Y, Han K, Jung J-H, Kim JS (2019) Association of exposure to diagnostic low-dose ionizing radiation with risk of cancer among youths in South Korea. JAMA Netw Open 2:e1910584CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Strauss KJ, Kaste SC (2006) The ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concept in pediatric interventional and fluoroscopic imaging: striving to keep radiation doses as low as possible during fluoroscopy of pediatric patients—a white paper executive summary. Radiology 240:621–622CrossRef Strauss KJ, Kaste SC (2006) The ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concept in pediatric interventional and fluoroscopic imaging: striving to keep radiation doses as low as possible during fluoroscopy of pediatric patients—a white paper executive summary. Radiology 240:621–622CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2001) Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:297–301CrossRef Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2001) Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:297–301CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hollingsworth C, Frush DP, Cross M, Lucaya J (2003) Helical CT of the body: a survey of techniques used for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:401–406CrossRef Hollingsworth C, Frush DP, Cross M, Lucaya J (2003) Helical CT of the body: a survey of techniques used for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:401–406CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The ‘image Gently’ campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 38:265–269CrossRef Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The ‘image Gently’ campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 38:265–269CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Greenwood TJ, Lopez-Costa RI, Rhoades PD et al (2015) CT dose optimization in pediatric radiology: a multiyear effort to preserve the benefits of imaging while reducing the risks. Radiographics 35:1539–1554CrossRef Greenwood TJ, Lopez-Costa RI, Rhoades PD et al (2015) CT dose optimization in pediatric radiology: a multiyear effort to preserve the benefits of imaging while reducing the risks. Radiographics 35:1539–1554CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC et al (2010) Image Gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:868–873CrossRef Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC et al (2010) Image Gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:868–873CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The Image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:273–274 Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The Image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:273–274
18.
go back to reference Frush DP (2002) Pediatric CT: practical approach to diminish the radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol 32:714–717CrossRef Frush DP (2002) Pediatric CT: practical approach to diminish the radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol 32:714–717CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D et al (2017) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 284:120–133CrossRef Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D et al (2017) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 284:120–133CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Bulas D et al (2011) Image Gently: progress and challenges in CT education and advocacy. Pediatr Radiol 41(Suppl 2):461–466CrossRef Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Bulas D et al (2011) Image Gently: progress and challenges in CT education and advocacy. Pediatr Radiol 41(Suppl 2):461–466CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS et al (2013) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:303–306CrossRef Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS et al (2013) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:303–306CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton-Gorges SL (2003) Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 228:352–360CrossRef Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton-Gorges SL (2003) Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 228:352–360CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Nelson TR (2014) Practical strategies to reduce pediatric CT radiation dose. J Am Coll Radiol 11:292–299CrossRef Nelson TR (2014) Practical strategies to reduce pediatric CT radiation dose. J Am Coll Radiol 11:292–299CrossRef
24.
go back to reference American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 23 (2008) AAPM Report No. 96 - The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. Vol 6. https://doi.org/10.37206/97 American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 23 (2008) AAPM Report No. 96 - The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. Vol 6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​37206/​97
25.
go back to reference Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD et al (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Report of AAPM Task Group 204. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD et al (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Report of AAPM Task Group 204. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine
26.
go back to reference National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2019) NCRP Report 184: Medical Radiation Exposure of Patients in the United States National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2019) NCRP Report 184: Medical Radiation Exposure of Patients in the United States
27.
go back to reference Langlotz CP (2006) RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics 25:1595–1597CrossRef Langlotz CP (2006) RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics 25:1595–1597CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Wildman-Tobriner B, Strauss KJ, Bhargavan-Chatfield M et al (2018) Using the American College of Radiology dose index registry to evaluate practice patterns and radiation dose estimates of pediatric body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:641–647CrossRef Wildman-Tobriner B, Strauss KJ, Bhargavan-Chatfield M et al (2018) Using the American College of Radiology dose index registry to evaluate practice patterns and radiation dose estimates of pediatric body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:641–647CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Sadigh G, Kadom N, Karthik P et al (2018) Noncontrast head CT in children: national variation in radiation dose indices in the United States. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39:1400–1405PubMedPubMedCentral Sadigh G, Kadom N, Karthik P et al (2018) Noncontrast head CT in children: national variation in radiation dose indices in the United States. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39:1400–1405PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Marin JR, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M et al (2015) Variation in pediatric cervical spine computed tomography radiation dose index. Acad Emerg Med 22:1499–1505CrossRef Marin JR, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M et al (2015) Variation in pediatric cervical spine computed tomography radiation dose index. Acad Emerg Med 22:1499–1505CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Goske MJ, Strauss KJ, Coombs LP et al (2013) Diagnostic reference ranges for Paediatric CT. Radiology 268:208–218CrossRef Goske MJ, Strauss KJ, Coombs LP et al (2013) Diagnostic reference ranges for Paediatric CT. Radiology 268:208–218CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (2016) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621CrossRef Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (2016) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Huda W, Sterzik A, Tipnis S (2010) X-ray beam filtration, dosimetry phantom size and CT patient dose conversion factors CT patient dose conversion factors. Phys Med Biol 55:551CrossRef Huda W, Sterzik A, Tipnis S (2010) X-ray beam filtration, dosimetry phantom size and CT patient dose conversion factors CT patient dose conversion factors. Phys Med Biol 55:551CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Kakinuma R, Ohmatsu H, Kaneko M et al (1999) Detection failures in spiral CT screening for lung caner: analysis of CT findings. Radiology 212:61–66CrossRef Kakinuma R, Ohmatsu H, Kaneko M et al (1999) Detection failures in spiral CT screening for lung caner: analysis of CT findings. Radiology 212:61–66CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Christianson O, Winslow J, Frush DP, Samei E (2015) Automated technique to measure noise in clinical CT examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W93–W99CrossRef Christianson O, Winslow J, Frush DP, Samei E (2015) Automated technique to measure noise in clinical CT examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W93–W99CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Frush DP, Donnelly LF (1998) Helical CT in children: technical considerations and body applications. Radiology 209:37–48CrossRef Frush DP, Donnelly LF (1998) Helical CT in children: technical considerations and body applications. Radiology 209:37–48CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Schuster AL, Forman HP, Strassle PD et al (2018) Awareness of radiation risks from CT scans among patients and providers and obstacles for informed decision-making. Emerg Radiol 25:41–49CrossRef Schuster AL, Forman HP, Strassle PD et al (2018) Awareness of radiation risks from CT scans among patients and providers and obstacles for informed decision-making. Emerg Radiol 25:41–49CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Samei E, Järvinen H, Kortesniemi M et al (2018) Medical imaging dose optimisation from ground up: expert opinion of an international summit. J Radiol Prot 38:967–989CrossRef Samei E, Järvinen H, Kortesniemi M et al (2018) Medical imaging dose optimisation from ground up: expert opinion of an international summit. J Radiol Prot 38:967–989CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Smith TB, Solomon J, Samei E (2017) Estimating detectability index in vivo: development and validation of an automated methodology. J Med Imaging 5:031403CrossRef Smith TB, Solomon J, Samei E (2017) Estimating detectability index in vivo: development and validation of an automated methodology. J Med Imaging 5:031403CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Clinical concordance with Image Gently guidelines for pediatric computed tomography: a study across 663,417 CT scans at 53 clinical facilities
Authors
Taylor Brunton Smith
John Heil
Donald P. Frush
Ehsan Samei
Publication date
01-05-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-020-04909-5

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

Pediatric Radiology 5/2021 Go to the issue

Minisymposium: Pediatric MRI quality and safety

Establishing a magnetic resonance safety program