Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Oct; 193(4):1141-7.AA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to determine, using an anthropomorphic phantom, whether patients are subject to variable radiation doses based on scanner assignment for common body CT studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters were placed in a medium-sized anthropomorphic phantom of a man. Pulmonary embolism and chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocols were used to scan the phantom three times with GE Healthcare scanners in four configurations and one 64-MDCT Siemens Healthcare scanner. Organ doses were averaged, and effective doses were calculated with weighting factors.

RESULTS

The mean effective doses for the pulmonary embolism protocol ranged from 9.9 to 18.5 mSv and for the chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocol from 6.7 to 18.5 mSv. For the pulmonary embolism protocol, the mean effective dose from the Siemens Healthcare 64-MDCT scanner was significantly lower than that from the 16- and 64-MDCT GE Healthcare scanners (p < 0.001). The mean effective dose from the GE 4-MDCT scanner was significantly lower than that for the GE 16-MDCT scanner (p < 0.001) but not the GE 64-MDCT scanner (p = 0.02). For the chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocol, all mean effective doses from the GE scanners were significantly different from one another (p < 0.001), the lowest mean effective dose being found with use of a single-detector CT scanner and the highest with a 4-MDCT scanner. For the chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocols, the difference between the mean effective doses from the GE Healthcare and Siemens Healthcare 64-MDCT scanners was not statistically significant (p = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

According to phantom data, patients are subject to different radiation exposures for similar body CT protocols depending on scanner assignment. In general, doses are lowest with use of 64-MDCT scanners.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Erwin Rd., Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710, USA. jaffe002@mc.duke.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19770340

Citation

Jaffe, Tracy A., et al. "Radiation Dose for Body CT Protocols: Variability of Scanners at One Institution." AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 193, no. 4, 2009, pp. 1141-7.
Jaffe TA, Yoshizumi TT, Toncheva G, et al. Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1141-7.
Jaffe, T. A., Yoshizumi, T. T., Toncheva, G., Anderson-Evans, C., Lowry, C., Miller, C. M., Nelson, R. C., & Ravin, C. E. (2009). Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 193(4), 1141-7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2330
Jaffe TA, et al. Radiation Dose for Body CT Protocols: Variability of Scanners at One Institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1141-7. PubMed PMID: 19770340.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution. AU - Jaffe,Tracy A, AU - Yoshizumi,Terry T, AU - Toncheva,Greta, AU - Anderson-Evans,Colin, AU - Lowry,Carolyn, AU - Miller,Chad M, AU - Nelson,Rendon C, AU - Ravin,Carl E, PY - 2009/9/23/entrez PY - 2009/9/23/pubmed PY - 2009/10/15/medline SP - 1141 EP - 7 JF - AJR. American journal of roentgenology JO - AJR Am J Roentgenol VL - 193 IS - 4 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine, using an anthropomorphic phantom, whether patients are subject to variable radiation doses based on scanner assignment for common body CT studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters were placed in a medium-sized anthropomorphic phantom of a man. Pulmonary embolism and chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocols were used to scan the phantom three times with GE Healthcare scanners in four configurations and one 64-MDCT Siemens Healthcare scanner. Organ doses were averaged, and effective doses were calculated with weighting factors. RESULTS: The mean effective doses for the pulmonary embolism protocol ranged from 9.9 to 18.5 mSv and for the chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocol from 6.7 to 18.5 mSv. For the pulmonary embolism protocol, the mean effective dose from the Siemens Healthcare 64-MDCT scanner was significantly lower than that from the 16- and 64-MDCT GE Healthcare scanners (p < 0.001). The mean effective dose from the GE 4-MDCT scanner was significantly lower than that for the GE 16-MDCT scanner (p < 0.001) but not the GE 64-MDCT scanner (p = 0.02). For the chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocol, all mean effective doses from the GE scanners were significantly different from one another (p < 0.001), the lowest mean effective dose being found with use of a single-detector CT scanner and the highest with a 4-MDCT scanner. For the chest, abdomen, and pelvis protocols, the difference between the mean effective doses from the GE Healthcare and Siemens Healthcare 64-MDCT scanners was not statistically significant (p = 0.89). CONCLUSION: According to phantom data, patients are subject to different radiation exposures for similar body CT protocols depending on scanner assignment. In general, doses are lowest with use of 64-MDCT scanners. SN - 1546-3141 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19770340/Radiation_dose_for_body_CT_protocols:_variability_of_scanners_at_one_institution_ L2 - http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.09.2330 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -