Radiation dose reduction without degrading image quality during computed tomography examinations: Dosimetry and quality control study

George Felix Acquah, Bernhard Schiestl, Afua Yeboah Cofie, Jeanette Obeng Nkansah, Magnus Gustavsson

Abstract


Purpose: Computed tomography (CT), is an X-ray procedure that generates high quality cross-sectional images of the body, and by comparison to other radiological diagnosis, is responsible for higher doses to patients. This work studies the doses and image qualities produced from the default primary scanning factors of a Siemens CT machine and afterwards came up with scanning protocols that allow radiologists to obtain the necessary diagnostic information while reducing radiation doses to as low as reasonably achievable.

Methods: Approximately 1000 CT scans from mostly common examinations; head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis routines were selected and analyzed for their image quality and radiation doses over a two year interval. Dose measurements were performed for the same routines using Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI) phantoms, RTI barracuda system with electrometer, and CT dose Profiler detector to evaluate the doses delivered during these CT procedures. Subsequently, image quality checks were performed using the CT Catphan 600 and anthropomorphic phantoms. CTDI and Dose Length Product (DLP) values were calculated for each scan. From analyzing these measurements, the appropriate machine scanning parameters were adjusted to reduce radiation does while at the same time providing good image quality.

Results: Doses to patients using the default head sequence protocol had an average CTDIvol value of 65.45 mGy and a range of 7.10-16.80 mGy for thorax, abdomen and pelvis examinations whiles the new protocol had an average CTDIvol of 58.32 mGy for the head and a range of 3.83-15.24 mGy for the truck region. The DLP value for default head scans decreased from an average of 2279.85 mGy.cm to 874.53 mGy.cm with the new protocol. Tube potentials (KV) and tube current-time (mAs) had an effect on spatial resolution and low contrast detectability as well as doses.

Conclusion: From the new protocols, lower values of KV and mAs together with other factors were enough to produce acceptable level of image quality which leads to adequate diagnosis without unnecessary doses to patients.

......................................................

Cite this article as:
Acquah GF, Schiestl B,Cofie AY, Nkansah JO. Radiation dose reduction without degrading image quality during computed tomography examinations: Dosimetry and quality control study. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(3):02039.  DOI: 10.14319/ijcto.0203.9


Keywords


Computerized Tomography; Radiation Dose Reduction; Image Quality; CTDI; DLP

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Volume 1, Annexe A: Medical radiation exposures.Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. New York: UnitedNations, 2008.

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_GA_Report_corr2.pdf

Biologic effects of ionizing radiation (BEIR) report VII. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, National Academies, 2006.

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/brp/radon_division/BEIR%20VII%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf

McCollough CH, Primak AN, Branu N, et al. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. RadiolClin North Am 2009; 47: 27-40.

The Royal College of Radiologists: Making the best use of clinical radiology services: referral guidelines. 6th Edition, London, 2007.

ICRP. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publications 60. Ann. ICRP 21, Pergamon Press, Oxford; 1991.

Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, Unscear 2000. New York: United Nations, 2000; 1:304-5.

Hart D, Wall BF. UK population dose from medical x-ray examinations. EurJRadiol 2004; 50:285-91.

Department of Health. Form KH12: Number of imaging and radio diagnostic examinations or tests, NHS organization in England, 2003-2004.

Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson J, et al. Application of draft European commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:43-50.

Wade JP, Weyman JC, Goldstone KE. CT standard protocols are of limiting value in assessing actual patient dose. Br J Radiol 1997; 70: 1146-51.

AAPM. The measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT. Report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the diagnostic imaging council CT committee. College Park, MD: AAPM; 2008.

Descamps C, Gonzalez M, Garigo E, et al. Measurements of dose delivered during CT exams using AAPM Task Group Report No. 111. J ApplClin Med Phys 2012; 13:3934.

EUR16262 EN. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. European Commission, Luxembourg, 2000.

American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for diagnostic reference levels in medical x-ray imaging. In: Practice guidelines and technical standards. American College of Radiology, Reston. VA, USA. 2008; 799-804.

Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 2001; 219: 693-8.

www.rti.se

Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 1981; 8:488-95.

Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, et al. Low-Kilovoltage Multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 2004; 231:169-74.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.0203.9

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

------------------------------------------------------------

International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)

© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ijcto.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

------------------------------------------------------------

Number of visits since October, 2013
AmazingCounters.com