IJSTR

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

IJSTR@Facebook IJSTR@Twitter IJSTR@Linkedin
Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
CALL FOR PAPERS
AUTHORS
DOWNLOADS
CONTACT
QR CODE
IJSTR-QR Code

IJSTR >> Volume 6 - Issue 2, February 2017 Edition



International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616



Estimate Of Reference Effective Dose And Renal Dose During Abdominal CT Scan For Dose Optimization Procedures In Ghana

[Full Text]

 

AUTHOR(S)

Issahaku Shirazu, Y. B Mensah, Cyril Schandorf, S. Y. Mensah

 

KEYWORDS

Abdominal CT scan, effective dose, renal dose, CTDI, DLP, SNR

 

ABSTRACT

The study is to estimate renal and effective dose during abdominal MDCT scan, using image data for dose optimization for purposes of radiation protection in Ghana. In addition dose influencing parameters including: CTDIVOL, DLP and MSAD were recorded and compared with ICRP/ICRU, AAPM, EU and IAEA dose optimization recommendations. All the measurements were done during abdominal MDCT examination. The measured parameters were part of image data on the MeVisLab (DICOM) application software platform. The total photon fluence (mAs per area) and the photon energy fluence (kVp per area) on the abdominal and renal surface was also determined. Renal and effective dose were estimated using ICRP publication 103 recommendations. The results of the measured parameters based on the average renal surface area of 29.52cm2 and 30.67cm2 for the right and left kidney respectively, shows that: The mean dose parameters were; 6.33mGy, 7.78mGy, 936.25mGy cm, 5.76mGy, 10.99mSv and 14.09mSv for CTDIV, CTDIW, DLP, MSAD, RD and E respectively. The average values were lower than the general recommended average critical values, but this seems misleading, based on the fact that 37% of the individual dose and exposure parameters exceeded the recommended critical values. A tradeoff between patient radiation dose and image quality in abdominal CT has been established. Where at a mean SNR of 6.6 decibels an adequate images were produce to answer all the clinical questions, with an average effective dose of 14.09mSv and renal dose of 10.99mSv. Radiation dose during x-ray CT imaging is an important patient safety concern. Reducing radiation dose result in a reduction of the risk to patient; however, reducing dose also reduces the signal strength and thereby reduces the signal to noise ratio in the resulting CT image, hence, the image quality is affected. It is recommended that the established reference values be use as clinical advisory mechanism to protect patience and clinicians. It is also recommended that the studies should be carry out periodical to estimates the abdominal effective dose in all the centers.

 

REFERENCES

[1] Hendee W R. Physics and applications of medical imaging. Rev Mod Phys. 1999; 71: 444–50.

[2] Tommy Löfstedt, Olof Ahnlund, Michael Peolsson, and Johan Trygg, Dynamic ultrasound imaging: A multivariate approach for the analysis and comparison of time-dependent musculoskeletal movements, BMC Med Imaging. PMCID: PMC3570433, 10.1186/1471-2342-12-29. 2012

[3] Sören Mattsson and Marcus Söderberg, Radiation dose management in CT, SPECT/CT and PET/CT techniques, Oxford University Press. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2 July 2011, Vol. 147, No. 1–2, pp. 13–21,

[4] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the Population of the United States. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; MD, USA: 2009. National Council on Radiation Protection report no. 160.

[5] ICRP, Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection Reference Values. ICRP Publication 89. Ann. ICRP 32 2002, pages: 3-4.

[6] Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Papadimitriou D, “Application of European Commission reference dose levels in CT examinations in Crete, Greece”, The British Journal of Radiology, 2001, 74(885):836-40.

[7] International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Radiological Protection and Safety in Medicine, ICRP Publication 73, Ann. ICRP 26(2) (Oxford: Pergamon Press), 1996.

[8] Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.

[9] I Reiser, Z Lu, R Nishikawa, University of Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, Contrast-To-Noise Ratio Is Not An Appropriate Measure of CT Image Quality When Comparing Different Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms, 54th annual meeting, July 29-August 2 2012, charlotte, NC

[10] Leitz, W., Axelsson, B., Szendro, G., “Computed tomography dose assessment a practical approach”, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry., 1995, 57 377–380

[11] I Reiser, Z Lu, R Nishikawa, University of Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, Contrast-To-Noise Ratio Is Not An Appropriate Measure of CT Image Quality When Comparing Different Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms, 54th annual meeting, July 29-August 2 2012, charlotte, NC

[12] Faiz M. Khan,” The physics of Radiation Therapy”, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2nd Edition, 1984, USA.

[13] Mullenders L, Atkinson M, Paretzke H, Sabatier L, Bouffler S. Assessing cancer risks of low-dose radiation. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2009; 9:596–604. [PubMed: 19629073] [Excellent review of the differences in biological responses to high- and low-dose radiation that may affect carcinogenic risk]

[14] Rothkamm K, Lobrich M. Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2003; 100:5057–5062. [PubMed: 12679524]

[15] Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Tzedakis A, Papadakis A, Theocharopoulos N, Gourtsoyannis N, 2007, “Determination of the weighted CT Dose Index in modern multi detector CT scanners”, Physics in Medicine and Radiology, 2007, 52:6485- 6495.

[16] Leitz, W., Axelsson, B., Szendro, G., “Computed tomography dose assessment a practical approach”, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry., 1995, 57 377–380

[17] AAPM Report No. 39, “Specification and Acceptance Testing of Computed Tomography Scanners”, 1993

[18] AAPM Report No.96, “The measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT”, 2008

[19] The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann. ICRP. 2007; 37(2–4):1–332

[20] Origgi D, Vigorito S, Villa G, Bellomi M, Tosi G,” Survey of Computed Tomography techniques and absorbed dose in Italian hospitals: a comparison between two methods to estimate the dose-length product and the effective dose and to verify fulfillment of the diagnostic reference levels”, Eur. Radiol.,2006, 16(1):227-237.

[21] ICRP Recommendation, managing patient dose in multidetector computed tomography, ICRP Publication 102. Ann ICRP 37(1 2007).

[22] Walter Huda, Kent M. Ogden, Mohammad R. Khorasani, Converting Dose-Length Product to Effective Dose at CT, RSNA, Volume 248: Number 3 September 2008 PP 995-1003.

[23] Jones DG and Shrimpton PC, Normalized organ doses for x-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques, Chilton, NRPB-SR250 (1993)

[24] Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Papadimitriou D, “Application of European Commission reference dose levels in CT examinations in Crete, Greece”, The British Journal of Radiology, 2001, 74(885):836-40.