[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
IJRR Information::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Subscription::
News & Events::
Web Mail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
ISSN
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
..
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.
..

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE

:: Volume 20, Issue 4 (10-2022) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2022, 20(4): 879-882 Back to browse issues page
Assessment of patient radiation dose in dual-phase abdominopelvic computed tomography
K.M. Abushab , H.H. Mansour , Y.S. Alajerami
Medical Imaging Department, Al-Azhar University, Gaza, Palestine , khaledshap@hotmail.com
Abstract:   (682 Views)
Background: Computed tomography (CT) is a highly effective imaging technique for abdominopelvic pathologies. Nonetheless, radiation concerns arise due to patients receiving a significant effective dose (ED). Thus, patient dose evaluation is critical to ensure that benefits compensate for the projected cancer risk. The current study aimed to assess abdominopelvic CT radiation exposure. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical design was conducted for 130 abdominopelvic CT procedures. The WAZA-ARI version 2 CT dosimetry system, which is web-based, open Monte Carlo simulation software for CT dose computations was used to calculate organ doses. Lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer induction was calculated for dual-phase abdominopelvic CT through the website “Xrayrisk.com”. Results: Results revealed that the mean ED was slightly lower in females compared to males (13.9±2.9 mSv vs. 15.5±2.7 mSv). The mean EDs for male patients in the arterial and venous phases were 6.2±1.08 mSv and 9.3±1.62, respectively, while the corresponding mean EDs  for female patients were 5.56±1.16 mSv and 8.34±1.74. The highest organ equivalent doses for both genders and among all exams were gonads (males 32.55, females 28.76 mSv); small intestine (males 30.26, females 26.66 mSv); colon (males 29.79, females 26.33 mSv), and stomach (males 28.55, females 25.23 mSv). Conclusion: Variations among organ doses and assumptions regarding negligible risk of malignancy inform current hospital policy.  Our findings suggest that achieving the balance between diagnostic benefits and radiation risk requires careful attention.
Keywords: Dual-phase abdominopelvic CT, patient radiation exposure.
Full-Text [PDF 529 kb]   (821 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Short Report | Subject: Radiation Biology
References
1. Gervaise A , Gervaise-Henry C , Pernin M , Naulet P , Junca-Laplace C, Lapierre-Combes M (2016) How to perform low-dose computed tomography for renal colic in clinical practice. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 97(4): 393-400.
2. Brix G, Nissen-Meyer S, Lechel U, Nissen-Meyer J, Griebel J, Nekolla EA, Becker C, Reiser M (2009) Radiation exposures of cancer patients from medical X-rays: How relevant are they for individual patients and population exposure? European Journal of Radiology, 72(2): 342-347.
3. Meulepas JM, Ronckers CM, Smets AM, Nievelstein RA, Gradowska P, Lee C, et al. (2018) Radiation exposure from pediatric CT scans and subsequent cancer risk in The Netherlands. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 111(3): 256-263.
4. Hosseinzadeh V, Ghaffari H, Rezaeyan A, Deilami S (2021) Estimating organ dose in computed tomography using tube current modulation: A Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Radiat Res, 19(3): 575-581.
5. ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103, Ann. ICRP, 37: 1–332.
6. Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, Bromberg R, Edlow J, Raptopoulos V (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. European Radiology, 13(2): 418-424.
7. Mpumelelo N (2021) Estimation of effective dose using the dose length product in chest computed tomography procedures. Int J Radiat Res, 19(4): 979-986.
8. Deevband MR, Ghorbani M, Eshraghi A, Salimi Y, Saeedzadeh E, Kardan MR, et al. (2021) Patient effective dose estimation for routine computed tomography examinations in Iran. Int J Radiat Res, 19(1): 63-73.
9. Ney MS, Dos Santos AA, Fonseca GV, Lodi CS (2017) Effective doses radiation to the patients in examinations performed in three CT scanners in BRAZIL†. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 176(4): 444-449.
10. Cianci R, Delli Pizzi A, Esposito G, Timpani M, Tavoletta A, Pulsone P, Basilico R, et al. (2018) Ultra-low dose CT colonography with automatic tube current modulation and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction: Effects on radiation exposure and image quality. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 20(1): 321-330.
11. Sookpeng S, Martin CJ, Gentle DJ (2015) Influence of CT automatic tube current modulation on uncertainty in effective dose. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 168(1): 46-54.
12. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R (2010) Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 51(3): 783.
13. Osei EK and Darko J (2013) A survey of organ equivalent and effective doses from diagnostic radiology procedures. ISRN Radiology, 2013: 1-9.
14. Sookpeng S, Martin C J, Gentle DJ (2015) Influence of CT automatic tube current modulation on uncertainty in effective dose. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 168(1), 46-54.
15. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Imuta M, Nakaura T, Ryu D, et al. (2005) Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: Preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology, 237(3): 945-951.
16. Brix, G., Nagel, H. D., Stamm, G., Veit, R., Lechel, U., Griebel, J., & Galanski, M. (2003). Radiation exposure in multi-Slice versus single-Slice spiral CT: Results of a nationwide survey. European Radiology, 13(8): 1979-1991.
17. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2003) Doses from computed tomography examinations in the UK-2003 review. Report NRPB-W67. [published on 2005 March] Available from: www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/w_series_reports/2005/nrpb_w67.htm
18. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J (2009) Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 47(1): 27-40.
19. Mansour HH, Alajerami YS, Foster T (2021) Estimation of radiation doses and lifetime attributable risk of radiation-induced cancer from a single coronary artery bypass graft computed tomography angiography. Electron J Gen Med, 18(6): em317.
20. Sackey TA, Schandorf C, Fletcher JJ, Mensah YB, Shirazu I, Akyea-Larbi KO, Tiburu EK, OdonkorST (2018) Cancer Risk Assessment of Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography Examination at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital. IJSRST, 4(2): 861-866.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Abushab K, Mansour H, Alajerami Y. Assessment of patient radiation dose in dual-phase abdominopelvic computed tomography. Int J Radiat Res 2022; 20 (4) :879-882
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4495-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 20, Issue 4 (10-2022) Back to browse issues page
International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4657