{"title":"评估不同扫描仪技术的CT剂量变化：对新的CMS CT辐射剂量测量依从性的影响。","authors":"Madan M Rehani, Maria T Mataac, Xinhua Li","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>In 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced a computed tomography (CT) dose measure for pay-for-performance programs. Hospitals employ diverse scanner fleets, but the impact of scanner technologies on dose benchmarking remains unclear. This study evaluates dose variation across scanner models and its benchmarking implications.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis examined CT exams from January to December 2023 at a quaternary-care hospital, focusing on median-sized adults (water-equivalent diameter: 16-19cm head, 18-22cm neck, 29-33cm torso). Dose indices from seven scanner models across eight adult exams were evaluated. The 50<sup>th</sup> and 75<sup>th</sup> percentile doses were calculated per exam and scanner model combination, compared to American College of Radiology achievable doses and diagnostic reference levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analyzing 34,166 studies, significant dose variations with scanner models emerged. Head without contrast (N=21,654) had median volume CT-dose-index (CTDI<sub>vol</sub>) of 36.1-68.3mGy and dose-length-product (DLP) 704-1307.8mGy·cm; 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles were 43.1-69.1mGy and 838.2-1378.1mGy·cm. Chest with contrast (N=3065) showed median CTDI<sub>vol</sub> of 6.7-16.1mGy and DLP 263.8-579.7mGy·cm; 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles were 8.2-19.5mGy and 329-713.7mGy·cm. Abdomen/pelvis with contrast (N=2740) had median CTDI<sub>vol</sub> of 8.8-15.2mGy and DLP 429.3-782.1mGy·cm; 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles were 10-18.5mGy and 533.4-941.5mGy·cm. While the number of studies was smaller, five other exams also showed large dose variations across scanner models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Single-value dose benchmarks ignoring scanner technology may be inadequate, even for similar-sized patients, potentially requiring scanner removal. Incorporating benchmarks with diverse technologies could prevent increased healthcare costs and patient care disruptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating CT Dose Variation Across Scanner Technologies: Implications for Compliance with New CMS CT Radiation Dose Measure.\",\"authors\":\"Madan M Rehani, Maria T Mataac, Xinhua Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>In 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced a computed tomography (CT) dose measure for pay-for-performance programs. Hospitals employ diverse scanner fleets, but the impact of scanner technologies on dose benchmarking remains unclear. This study evaluates dose variation across scanner models and its benchmarking implications.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis examined CT exams from January to December 2023 at a quaternary-care hospital, focusing on median-sized adults (water-equivalent diameter: 16-19cm head, 18-22cm neck, 29-33cm torso). Dose indices from seven scanner models across eight adult exams were evaluated. The 50<sup>th</sup> and 75<sup>th</sup> percentile doses were calculated per exam and scanner model combination, compared to American College of Radiology achievable doses and diagnostic reference levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analyzing 34,166 studies, significant dose variations with scanner models emerged. Head without contrast (N=21,654) had median volume CT-dose-index (CTDI<sub>vol</sub>) of 36.1-68.3mGy and dose-length-product (DLP) 704-1307.8mGy·cm; 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles were 43.1-69.1mGy and 838.2-1378.1mGy·cm. Chest with contrast (N=3065) showed median CTDI<sub>vol</sub> of 6.7-16.1mGy and DLP 263.8-579.7mGy·cm; 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles were 8.2-19.5mGy and 329-713.7mGy·cm. Abdomen/pelvis with contrast (N=2740) had median CTDI<sub>vol</sub> of 8.8-15.2mGy and DLP 429.3-782.1mGy·cm; 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles were 10-18.5mGy and 533.4-941.5mGy·cm. While the number of studies was smaller, five other exams also showed large dose variations across scanner models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Single-value dose benchmarks ignoring scanner technology may be inadequate, even for similar-sized patients, potentially requiring scanner removal. Incorporating benchmarks with diverse technologies could prevent increased healthcare costs and patient care disruptions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.026\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating CT Dose Variation Across Scanner Technologies: Implications for Compliance with New CMS CT Radiation Dose Measure.
Rationale and objectives: In 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced a computed tomography (CT) dose measure for pay-for-performance programs. Hospitals employ diverse scanner fleets, but the impact of scanner technologies on dose benchmarking remains unclear. This study evaluates dose variation across scanner models and its benchmarking implications.
Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis examined CT exams from January to December 2023 at a quaternary-care hospital, focusing on median-sized adults (water-equivalent diameter: 16-19cm head, 18-22cm neck, 29-33cm torso). Dose indices from seven scanner models across eight adult exams were evaluated. The 50th and 75th percentile doses were calculated per exam and scanner model combination, compared to American College of Radiology achievable doses and diagnostic reference levels.
Results: Analyzing 34,166 studies, significant dose variations with scanner models emerged. Head without contrast (N=21,654) had median volume CT-dose-index (CTDIvol) of 36.1-68.3mGy and dose-length-product (DLP) 704-1307.8mGy·cm; 75th percentiles were 43.1-69.1mGy and 838.2-1378.1mGy·cm. Chest with contrast (N=3065) showed median CTDIvol of 6.7-16.1mGy and DLP 263.8-579.7mGy·cm; 75th percentiles were 8.2-19.5mGy and 329-713.7mGy·cm. Abdomen/pelvis with contrast (N=2740) had median CTDIvol of 8.8-15.2mGy and DLP 429.3-782.1mGy·cm; 75th percentiles were 10-18.5mGy and 533.4-941.5mGy·cm. While the number of studies was smaller, five other exams also showed large dose variations across scanner models.
Conclusion: Single-value dose benchmarks ignoring scanner technology may be inadequate, even for similar-sized patients, potentially requiring scanner removal. Incorporating benchmarks with diverse technologies could prevent increased healthcare costs and patient care disruptions.
期刊介绍：
Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
