Top

Insights into Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2013 | Original Article

A questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists’ and clinical specialist radiographers’ knowledge of CT exposure parameters

Authors: S. J. Foley, M. G. Evanoff, L. A. Rainford

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 5/2013

Abstract

Objective

To review knowledge of computed tomography (CT) parameters and their influence on patient dose and image quality amongst a cohort of clinical specialist radiographers (CSRs) and examining radiologists.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was devised and distributed to a cohort of 65 examining radiologists attending the American Board of Radiology exam in Kentucky in November 2011. The questionnaire was later distributed by post to a matching cohort of Irish CT CSRs. Each questionnaire contained 40 questions concerning CT parameters and their influence on both patient dose and image quality.

Results

A response rate of 22 % (radiologists) and 32 % (CSRs) was achieved. No difference in mean scores was detected between either group (27.8 ± 4 vs 28.1 ± 4, P = 0.87) although large ranges were noted (18–36). Considerable variations in understanding of CT parameters was identified, especially regarding operation of automatic exposure control and the influence of kilovoltage and tube current on patient dose and image quality. Radiologists were unaware of recommended diagnostic reference levels. Both cohorts were concerned regarding CT doses in their departments.

Conclusions

CT parameters were well understood by both groups. However, a number of deficiencies were noted which may have a considerable impact on patient doses and limit the potential for optimisation in clinical practice.

Key points

• CT users must adapt parameters to optimise patient dose and image quality.

• The influence of some parameters is not well understood.

• A need for ongoing education in dose optimisation is identified.

Available only for authorised users

UNSCEAR (2008) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Report to the general assesmbly with scientific annexes. United Nations, New York

NCRP (2009) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Bethesda

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

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

Bogdanich W (2010) After stroke scans, patients face serious health risks. In: The New York Times, New York

Zarembo A (2009) Cedars-Sinai investigated for significant overdoses of 206 patients. In: Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles

USDHHS (2005) Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition. National Toxicology Program, US Department of Health and Human Sciences, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Washington

Valentin J; International Commission on Radiation Protection (2007) Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). Publication 102. Ann ICRP 37:1–79

Amis ES Jr et al (2007) American College of Radiology White Paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 4:272–284PubMedCrossRef

10.

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

11.

Hollingsworth C et al (2003) Helical CT of the body: a survey of techniques used for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:401–406PubMedCrossRef

12.

Rizzo S et al (2006) Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:673–679PubMedCrossRef

13.

Yu L et al (2010) Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 37:234–243PubMedCrossRef

14.

Matsubara K et al (2009) Misoperation of CT automatic tube current modulation systems with inappropriate patient centering: phantom studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:862–865PubMedCrossRef

15.

Gudjonsdottir J et al (2009) Efficient use of automatic exposure control systems in computed tomography requires correct patient positioning. Acta Radiol 50:1035–1041PubMedCrossRef

16.

HSE (2010) Population dose from CT Scanning: 2009. Health Services Executive, Dublin

17.

Edwards P et al (2007) Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:MR000008

18.

Shih T-H, Fan X (2009) Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 4:26–40CrossRef

19.

Seeram E (2009) Computed tomography: Physical principles, clinical applications and quality control, 3rd edn. Sanders, St Louis

20.

Hsieh J (2009) Computed tomography. Principles, design, artifacts and recent advances, 2nd edn. SPIE & Wiley, Bellingham

21.

ACR (2011) ACR practice guidelines for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomography. American College of Radiology, Reston

22.

Kalra MK et al (2005) Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 235:523–529PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kluner C et al (2006) Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:44–50PubMedCrossRef

24.

Christe A et al (2011) CT screening and follow-up of lung nodules: Effects of tube current-time setting and nodule size and density on detectability and of tube current-time setting on apparent size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:623–630PubMedCrossRef

25.

Tack D et al (2003) Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:939–944PubMedCrossRef

26.

Soderberg M, Gunnarsson M (2010) Automatic exposure control in computed tomography—an evaluation of systems from different manufacturers. Acta Radiol 51:625–634PubMedCrossRef

27.

Guite KM et al (2011) Ionizing radiation in abdominal CT: Unindicated multiphase scans are an important source of medically unnecessary exposure. J Am Coll Radiol 8:756–761PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

McNitt-Gray M (2011) Tube current modulation approaches: overview, practical issues and potential pitfalls. AAPM 2011 Summit on CT Dose, Denver

29.

Haramati N et al (1994) CT scans through metal scanning technique versus hardware composition. Comput Med Imaging and Graph 18:429–434CrossRef

30.

Rizzo SM et al (2005) Do metallic endoprostheses increase radiation dose associated with automatic tube-current modulation in abdominal-pelvic MDCT? A phantom and patient study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:491–496PubMedCrossRef

31.

Dalal T et al (2005) Metallic prosthesis: technique to avoid increase in CT radiation dose with automatic tube current modulation in a phantom and patients. Radiology 236:671–675PubMedCrossRef

32.

Winklehner A et al (2011) Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography: improved dose effectiveness. Investig Radiol 46:767–773CrossRef

33.

Sigal-Cinqualbre AB et al (2004) Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 231:169–174PubMedCrossRef

34.

Leschka S et al (2008) Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 18:1809–1817PubMedCrossRef

35.

Kim MJ et al (2009) Multidetector computed tomography chest examinations with low-kilovoltage protocols in adults: effect on image quality and radiation dose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:416–421PubMedCrossRef

36.

Bogot NR et al (2011) Image quality of low-energy pulmonary CT angiography: comparison with standard CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W273–W278PubMedCrossRef

37.

Keat N (2005) CT scanner automatic exposure control systems. Report 05016. ImPACT, London

38.

Nakayama Y et al (2005) Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 237:945–951PubMedCrossRef

39.

Primak AN et al (2006) Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multidetector row CT. Radiographics 26:1785–1794PubMedCrossRef

40.

Goldman LW (2007) Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality. J Nucl Med Technol 35:213–225PubMedCrossRef

41.

Husband J, Padhani A (2006) Recommendations for cross-sectional imaging in cancer management. Royal College of Radiologists, London

42.

Kumar R (2011) Research methodology. A step by step guide for beginners. SAGE Publications, London

Title: A questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists’ and clinical specialist radiographers’ knowledge of CT exposure parameters
Authors: S. J. Foley
M. G. Evanoff
L. A. Rainford
Publication date: 01-10-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 5/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0282-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists’ and clinical specialist radiographers’ knowledge of CT exposure parameters

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key points

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

Response to invited commentary: “Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionizing medical imaging” by Recchia et al

Radiology smartphone applications; current provision and cautions

Survey of inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging

Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide

Joint ESR-EFSUMB recommendation on archiving and reporting ultrasound examinations

Clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT in recurrent stage III/IV melanoma: a tertiary centre Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (SSMDT) experience