Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Radiation exposure in urology: a genitourinary catalogue for diagnostic imaging.
J Urol. 2013 Dec; 190(6):2117-23.JU

Abstract

PURPOSE

Computerized tomography use increased exponentially in the last 3 decades, and it is commonly used to evaluate many urological conditions. Ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging is linked to the risk of malignancy. We measured the organ and calculated effective doses of different studies to determine whether the dose-length product method is an accurate estimation of radiation exposure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anthropomorphic male phantom validated for human organ dosimetry measurements was used to determine radiation doses. High sensitivity metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters were placed at 20 organ locations to measure specific organ doses. For each study the phantom was scanned 3 times using our institutional protocols. Organ doses were measured and effective doses were calculated on dosimetry. Effective doses measured by a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeter were compared to calculated effective doses derived from the dose-length product.

RESULTS

The mean±SD effective dose on dosimetry for stone protocol, chest and abdominopelvic computerized tomography, computerized tomography urogram and renal cell carcinoma protocol computerized tomography was 3.04±0.34, 4.34±0.27, 5.19±0.64, 9.73±0.71 and 11.42±0.24 mSv, respectively. The calculated effective dose for these studies Was 3.33, 2.92, 5.84, 9.64 and 10.06 mSv, respectively (p=0.8478).

CONCLUSIONS

The effective dose varies considerable for different urological computerized tomography studies. Renal stone protocol computerized tomography shows the lowest dose, and computerized tomography urogram and the renal cell carcinoma protocol accumulate the highest effective doses. The calculated effective dose derived from the dose-length product is a reasonable estimate of patient radiation exposure.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Urology, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz, Germany.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23764073

Citation

Neisius, Andreas, et al. "Radiation Exposure in Urology: a Genitourinary Catalogue for Diagnostic Imaging." The Journal of Urology, vol. 190, no. 6, 2013, pp. 2117-23.
Neisius A, Wang AJ, Wang C, et al. Radiation exposure in urology: a genitourinary catalogue for diagnostic imaging. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2117-23.
Neisius, A., Wang, A. J., Wang, C., Nguyen, G., Tsivian, M., Kuntz, N. J., Astroza, G. M., Lowry, C., Toncheva, G., Yoshizumi, T. T., Preminger, G. M., Ferrandino, M. N., & Lipkin, M. E. (2013). Radiation exposure in urology: a genitourinary catalogue for diagnostic imaging. The Journal of Urology, 190(6), 2117-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.013
Neisius A, et al. Radiation Exposure in Urology: a Genitourinary Catalogue for Diagnostic Imaging. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2117-23. PubMed PMID: 23764073.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Radiation exposure in urology: a genitourinary catalogue for diagnostic imaging. AU - Neisius,Andreas, AU - Wang,Agnes J, AU - Wang,Chu, AU - Nguyen,Giao, AU - Tsivian,Matvey, AU - Kuntz,Nicholas J, AU - Astroza,Gastón M, AU - Lowry,Carolyn, AU - Toncheva,Greta, AU - Yoshizumi,Terry T, AU - Preminger,Glenn M, AU - Ferrandino,Michael N, AU - Lipkin,Michael E, Y1 - 2013/06/11/ PY - 2013/06/03/accepted PY - 2013/6/15/entrez PY - 2013/6/15/pubmed PY - 2014/1/7/medline KW - CT KW - CT dose index KW - CTDI KW - CTDI(vol) KW - DLP KW - ED KW - ED calculated from DLPs derived from CT console KW - ED measured with MOSFETs KW - ED(MOSFET) KW - ED(cal) KW - IVP KW - KUB KW - MOSFET KW - OD KW - RCC KW - W(t) KW - computerized tomography KW - dose-length product KW - dose-response relationship KW - effective dose KW - excretory urogram KW - metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor KW - organ specific radiation dose KW - plain x-ray of kidney, ureter and bladder KW - radiation KW - renal cell carcinoma KW - risk KW - tissue weighting factor KW - urology KW - volume specific CTDI SP - 2117 EP - 23 JF - The Journal of urology JO - J Urol VL - 190 IS - 6 N2 - PURPOSE: Computerized tomography use increased exponentially in the last 3 decades, and it is commonly used to evaluate many urological conditions. Ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging is linked to the risk of malignancy. We measured the organ and calculated effective doses of different studies to determine whether the dose-length product method is an accurate estimation of radiation exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anthropomorphic male phantom validated for human organ dosimetry measurements was used to determine radiation doses. High sensitivity metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters were placed at 20 organ locations to measure specific organ doses. For each study the phantom was scanned 3 times using our institutional protocols. Organ doses were measured and effective doses were calculated on dosimetry. Effective doses measured by a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeter were compared to calculated effective doses derived from the dose-length product. RESULTS: The mean±SD effective dose on dosimetry for stone protocol, chest and abdominopelvic computerized tomography, computerized tomography urogram and renal cell carcinoma protocol computerized tomography was 3.04±0.34, 4.34±0.27, 5.19±0.64, 9.73±0.71 and 11.42±0.24 mSv, respectively. The calculated effective dose for these studies Was 3.33, 2.92, 5.84, 9.64 and 10.06 mSv, respectively (p=0.8478). CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose varies considerable for different urological computerized tomography studies. Renal stone protocol computerized tomography shows the lowest dose, and computerized tomography urogram and the renal cell carcinoma protocol accumulate the highest effective doses. The calculated effective dose derived from the dose-length product is a reasonable estimate of patient radiation exposure. SN - 1527-3792 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23764073/Radiation_exposure_in_urology:_a_genitourinary_catalogue_for_diagnostic_imaging_ L2 - https://www.jurology.com/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.013?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -