Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 8/2020

01-08-2020 | Radiation Protection | Physics

Variabilities in X-ray diagnostic reference levels

Authors: Thibault Vanaudenhove, Alain Van Muylem, Nigel Howarth, Pierre Alain Gevenois, Denis Tack

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To estimate the variability of X-ray diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) depending on the number of X-ray devices and data per device.

Methods

Dose-area products (DAP) were collected by the national nuclear control agency from the 590 devices installed in 345 medical centers in the country. From 2015 to 2017, the number of chest (postero-anterior (PA) view alone, and both postero-anterior and lateral views (PA/LAT)), abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine examinations collected in these centers ranged from 23,000 to 77,000. The impact of the number of devices and DAP data per device on DRLs’ variabilities (95th confidence intervals divided by medians) is estimated using a bootstrapping method as a function of the number of devices and DAP per device.

Results

The DRLs’ variabilities ranged from 30 to 200% depending on the number of devices and DAP data per device but stabilized at 30% when the number of devices was higher than 200 for chest PA and abdomen examinations, 300 for lumbar spine and pelvis examinations, and 400 for chest PA/LAT examinations, regardless of the number of DAP data per device. Extrapolations of our results suggest that thousands of devices are necessary to reduce DRLs’ variabilities to 10%.

Conclusion

DAP-related DRL variabilities are high but only moderately influenced by the number of DAP data per device and of devices provided this number is higher than 200 to 400 devices according to the type of examination. Harmonization of methods of data collection between the authorities of the EU states should be recommended.

Key Points

• DAP-related DRLs are not fixed values but ranges of values with at least 30% variability.
• DAP-related DRLs strongly depend on the number of devices included when lower than 100.
• If the number of devices included exceeds 200 to 400, the DRLs’ variabilities do not depend on the number of DAP per device and should not exceed 30%.
Literature
1.
go back to reference The council of the European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/43 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. Available via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1997/43/oj. Accessed 20 Oct 2019 The council of the European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/43 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. Available via https://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​eli/​dir/​1997/​43/​oj. Accessed 20 Oct 2019
2.
go back to reference The 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. Available via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/59/oj. Accessed 20 Oct 2019 The 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. Available via https://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​eli/​dir/​2013/​59/​oj. Accessed 20 Oct 2019
3.
go back to reference Vaño E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann. ICRP 46:1–144 Vaño E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann. ICRP 46:1–144
6.
go back to reference Stamm G (2012) Collective radiation dose from MDCT. Critical review of survey studies. In: Tack D, Kalra MK, Gevenois PA (eds) Radiation dose from multidetector CT. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 209–229 Stamm G (2012) Collective radiation dose from MDCT. Critical review of survey studies. In: Tack D, Kalra MK, Gevenois PA (eds) Radiation dose from multidetector CT. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 209–229
7.
go back to reference Tack D, Jahnen A, Kohler S et al (2014) Multidetector CT radiation dose optimisation in adults: short- and long-term effects of a clinical audit. Eur Radiol 24:169–175CrossRef Tack D, Jahnen A, Kohler S et al (2014) Multidetector CT radiation dose optimisation in adults: short- and long-term effects of a clinical audit. Eur Radiol 24:169–175CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980CrossRef Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Jessen KA, Shrimpton PC, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G (1999) Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. Appl Radiat Isot 50:165–172CrossRef Jessen KA, Shrimpton PC, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G (1999) Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. Appl Radiat Isot 50:165–172CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Taylor S, Van Muylem A, Howarth N, Gevenois PA, Tack D (2019) X-ray examination dose surveys: how accurate are my results? Eur Radiol 2019;10:5307–5313 Taylor S, Van Muylem A, Howarth N, Gevenois PA, Tack D (2019) X-ray examination dose surveys: how accurate are my results? Eur Radiol 2019;10:5307–5313
18.
go back to reference Taylor S, Van Muylem A, Howarth N, Gevenois PA, Tack D (2017) CT dose survey in adults: what sample size for what precision? Eur Radiol 27(1):365–373CrossRef Taylor S, Van Muylem A, Howarth N, Gevenois PA, Tack D (2017) CT dose survey in adults: what sample size for what precision? Eur Radiol 27(1):365–373CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Vanaudenhove T, Van Muylem A, Howarth N, Gevenois PA, Tack D (2019) CT diagnostic reference levels: are they appropriately computed? Eur Radiol 10:5264–5271CrossRef Vanaudenhove T, Van Muylem A, Howarth N, Gevenois PA, Tack D (2019) CT diagnostic reference levels: are they appropriately computed? Eur Radiol 10:5264–5271CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Variabilities in X-ray diagnostic reference levels
Authors
Thibault Vanaudenhove
Alain Van Muylem
Nigel Howarth
Pierre Alain Gevenois
Denis Tack
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06819-4

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

European Radiology 8/2020 Go to the issue