{"title":"Institutional clinical indication-based typical dose values of multiphasic abdominopelvic computed tomography examinations.","authors":"Süleyman Filiz, Safiye Gürel, Kamil Gürel","doi":"10.4274/dir.2024.232551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our study aimed to obtain clinical indication-based typical dose values and size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs) for multiphasic abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) examinations and to review our data with published diagnostic reference levels (DRLs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, multiphasic liver, kidney, pancreas, and mesenteric ischemia protocol CT scans performed at our center between January 2018 and December 2021 were analyzed. The clinical indications were hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, pancreas adenocarcinoma, and mesenteric ischemia. The computed tomography dose index volume (CTDI<sub>vol</sub>) and dose-length product (DLP) values were recorded, and the SSDE and effective dose (ED) values were calculated. The water-equivalent diameter (Dw) value required for the SSDE calculation was measured using the automated calculation of the Dw program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of patients was 514, with 86 patients excluded from this study. The dose values were calculated for 426 patients (183 female and 243 male; 111 liver, 120 kidney, 85 pancreas, and 110 mesenteric). The median values for the CTDI<sub>vol</sub>, DLP, SSDE, and ED were 6.86 mGy, 683.02 mGy. cm, 8.75 mGy, and 10.45 mSv for the liver CT; 8.37 mGy, 908.37 mGy.cm, 10.37 mGy, and 13.89 mSv for the kidney CT; 7.82 mGy, 517.98 mGy.cm, 10.01 mGy, and 7.92 mSv for the pancreas CT; and 9.48 mGy, 983.68 mGy.cm, 12.78 mGy, and 13.86 mSv for the mesenteric CT, respectively. All dose values were lower than the published DRLs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The literature reveals large differences in the multiphasic abdominopelvic CT protocols, especially in the number of phases and scan length. This situation makes comparing dose values difficult. Dose studies revealing the protocol parameters in detail are needed so that institutions can compare and optimize their own protocols. Additionally, users should periodically check the dose values in their own institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":11341,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.232551","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Our study aimed to obtain clinical indication-based typical dose values and size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs) for multiphasic abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) examinations and to review our data with published diagnostic reference levels (DRLs).
Methods: In this retrospective study, multiphasic liver, kidney, pancreas, and mesenteric ischemia protocol CT scans performed at our center between January 2018 and December 2021 were analyzed. The clinical indications were hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, pancreas adenocarcinoma, and mesenteric ischemia. The computed tomography dose index volume (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) values were recorded, and the SSDE and effective dose (ED) values were calculated. The water-equivalent diameter (Dw) value required for the SSDE calculation was measured using the automated calculation of the Dw program.
Results: The total number of patients was 514, with 86 patients excluded from this study. The dose values were calculated for 426 patients (183 female and 243 male; 111 liver, 120 kidney, 85 pancreas, and 110 mesenteric). The median values for the CTDIvol, DLP, SSDE, and ED were 6.86 mGy, 683.02 mGy. cm, 8.75 mGy, and 10.45 mSv for the liver CT; 8.37 mGy, 908.37 mGy.cm, 10.37 mGy, and 13.89 mSv for the kidney CT; 7.82 mGy, 517.98 mGy.cm, 10.01 mGy, and 7.92 mSv for the pancreas CT; and 9.48 mGy, 983.68 mGy.cm, 12.78 mGy, and 13.86 mSv for the mesenteric CT, respectively. All dose values were lower than the published DRLs.
Conclusion: The literature reveals large differences in the multiphasic abdominopelvic CT protocols, especially in the number of phases and scan length. This situation makes comparing dose values difficult. Dose studies revealing the protocol parameters in detail are needed so that institutions can compare and optimize their own protocols. Additionally, users should periodically check the dose values in their own institutions.
期刊介绍：
Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (Diagn Interv Radiol) is the open access, online-only official publication of Turkish Society of Radiology. It is published bimonthly and the journal’s publication language is English.
The journal is a medium for original articles, reviews, pictorial essays, technical notes related to all fields of diagnostic and interventional radiology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
