1 Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel, CH 4031, Switzerland.
2 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Dec;209(6):1302-1307. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18087. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
The purpose of this study is to compare diagnostic reference levels from a local European CT dose registry, using radiation-tracking software from a large patient sample, with preexisting European and North American diagnostic reference levels.
Data (n = 43,761 CT scans obtained over the course of 2 years) for the European local CT dose registry were obtained from eight CT scanners at six institutions. Means, medians, and interquartile ranges of volumetric CT dose index (CTDI), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate, and effective dose values for CT examinations of the head, paranasal sinuses, thorax, pulmonary angiogram, abdomen-pelvis, renal-colic, thorax-abdomen-pelvis, and thoracoabdominal angiogram were obtained using radiation-tracking software. Metrics from this registry were compared with diagnostic reference levels from Canada and California (published in 2015), the American College of Radiology (ACR) dose index registry (2015), and national diagnostic reference levels from local CT dose registries in Switzerland (2010), the United Kingdom (2011), and Portugal (2015).
Our local registry had a lower 75th percentile CTDI for all protocols than did the individual internationally sourced data. Compared with our study, the ACR dose index registry had higher 75th percentile CTDI values by 55% for head, 240% for thorax, 28% for abdomen-pelvis, 42% for thorax-abdomen-pelvis, 128% for pulmonary angiogram, 138% for renal-colic, and 58% for paranasal sinus studies.
Our local registry had lower diagnostic reference level values than did existing European and North American diagnostic reference levels. Automated radiation-tracking software could be used to establish and update existing diagnostic reference levels because they are capable of analyzing large datasets meaningfully.
本研究旨在比较来自欧洲局部 CT 剂量登记处的诊断参考水平,方法是使用来自大型患者样本的辐射跟踪软件,与现有的欧洲和北美诊断参考水平进行比较。
从欧洲六个机构的八台 CT 扫描仪中获得了为期两年的欧洲局部 CT 剂量登记处的数据(n=43761 次 CT 扫描)。使用辐射跟踪软件获得了头、鼻窦、胸部、肺动脉造影、腹部-骨盆、肾绞痛、胸部-腹部-骨盆和胸腹血管造影 CT 检查的容积 CT 剂量指数(CTDI)、剂量长度乘积(DLP)、体型特异性剂量估计值和有效剂量值的均值、中位数和四分位间距。将该登记处的指标与加拿大和加利福尼亚(2015 年发布)、美国放射学会(ACR)剂量指数登记处(2015 年)以及瑞士(2010 年)、英国(2011 年)和葡萄牙(2015 年)的局部 CT 剂量登记处的国家诊断参考水平进行比较。
我们的本地登记处的所有协议的第 75 个百分位数 CTDI 均低于国际来源的数据。与我们的研究相比,ACR 剂量指数登记处的头、胸、腹部-骨盆、胸腹血管造影、肺动脉造影、肾绞痛和鼻窦研究的第 75 个百分位数 CTDI 值分别高出 55%、240%、28%、42%、128%、138%和 58%。
我们的本地登记处的诊断参考水平值低于现有的欧洲和北美诊断参考水平。自动化辐射跟踪软件可以用于建立和更新现有的诊断参考水平,因为它们能够有意义地分析大量数据集。