ARDIŞIK TORAKS VE ABDOMEN BT TETKİKLERİNDE TARAMA UZUNLUĞU VE RADYASYON DOZ PARAMETRELERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Year 2021, Volume: 22 Issue: 4, 278 - 281, 01.07.2021

Eray Atlı , Abidin Kılınçer Sadık Uyanık Umut Öğüşlü , Halime Çevik

https://doi.org/10.18229/kocatepetip.741211

Abstract

AMAÇ: Bu çalışma ile amacımız ardışık toraks ve abdomen BT tetkiklerinde tarama uzunluğu değişkenliğini ve tarama uzunluğunun radyasyon dozu parametreleri üzerine etkisini değerlendirmektir.
GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Merkezimizde, Ocak 2018 ve Aralık 2018 tarihleri arasında aynı hastaya ait ardışık toraks (n=85) ve abdomen BT (n=57) tetkikleri çalışmaya dahil edildi. Toraks BT tetkiklerinin % 39 (n=33)'u, abdomen BT tetkiklerinin % 51 (n=29)'i kadındı. BT radyasyon dozu parametreleri görüntü arşivleme iletişim sisteminden (picture archiving communications system, PACS) retrospektif elde edildi. Hacimsel BT doz indeksi (Volume CT dose index, CTDIvol) ve doz uzunluk çarpımı (dose length product, DLP) değerleri hasta protokolünden kaydedildi. Etkin doz (ED) ve tarama uzunluğu (TU) hesaplandı. Ardışık toraks ve abdomen BT tetkikleri kendi içinde (ilk tetkik ve ikinci tetkik olmak üzere) iki gruba ayrıldı, ve BT radyasyon dozu parametreleri ile TU değerlendirildi.
BULGULAR: Toraks ve abdomen BT'si elde edilen hastaların ortalama yaşı sırasıyla 58±16 ve 51±16'dır. Her iki tetkik bölgesinde ardışık BT tetkikleri arasında DLP ve ED değerleri arasında istatiksel fark saptanmadı (p>0,05). Ardışık tetkikler arasında CTDIvol değeri açısından toraks BT grubunda anlamlı fark bulunmazken (p=0,724), abdomen BT grubunda anlamlı fark göstermektedir (P=0,042). Tarama uzunluğunun tetkikler arasındaki ortalama farkı toraks BT için 3,3 ± 2,6 cm, abdomen BT için 3,1 ± 2,5 cm olarak hesaplandı. Her iki tetkik bölgesinde tarama uzunluğu ardışık tetkikler arasında anlamlı farklılık göstermemektedir (p>0,05).
SONUÇ: Ardışık toraks ve abdomen BT tetkiklerinde, tarama uzunluğu açısından DLP ve ED'ye etki edecek bir farklılık saptanmadı. Ardışık tetkiklerde TU açısından fark saptanmamasına rağmen, BT çekimlerinde TU taranan anatomik bölgede tanısal bilgi kaybına neden olmayacak en kısa şekilde ayarlanmalıdır.

Keywords

BT, tarama uzunluğu, CTDIvol, , DLP

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

Yok

Thanks

Yok

COMPARISON OF SCAN LENGTH AND RADIATION DOSE PARAMETERS IN CONSECUTIVE THORACIC AND ABDOMINAL CT EXAMINATIONS

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the scan length variability and the effect of the scan length on radiation dose parameters in consecutive thoracic and abdominal CT examinations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent consecutive thoracic (n = 85) and abdominal CT (n = 57) examinations between January 2018 and December 2018 were included in this study. Thirty-nine percent (n = 33) of the thoracic CT examinations and 51 % (n = 29) of the abdominal CT examinations were performed on women. CT radiation dose parameters were obtained retrospectively from picture archiving communications system. Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) values were recorded from the patient protocols. Effective dose (ED) and scan length (SL) were calculated. Consecutive thoracic and abdominal CT examinations were divided into two groups (first examination and second examination), and CT radiation dose parameters and SL were evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients in both thoracic and abdominal CT groups were 58±16 and 51±16 years old, respectively. There was no statistical difference between consecutive CT examinations in the relevant regions in terms of DLP and ED values (p> 0.05). CTDIvol were similar between consecutive examinations in the thoracic CT group (p=0.724), whereas there was significant difference between consecutive examinations in the abdominal CT group in terms of CTDIvol (p=0.042). The mean differences of SL in CT examinations were 3.3±2.6 cm for thoracic CT group and 3.1±2.5 cm for abdominal CT group. There was no significant difference in both consecutive thoracic and abdominal CT examinations in terms of SL (p> 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive thoracic and abdominal CT examinations, there was no difference in terms of SL that can affect DLP and ED. Although there is no difference in terms of SL between consecutive thoracic and abdominal CT examinations, SL must be adjusted as short as possible since it will not cause any loss in the diagnostic information in the region of interest.

Keywords

Computed tomography, Scan length, Volume computed tomography dose index

Project Number

Yok

References

• 1. Schmid D. Computed tomography (CT) scan examinations in Turkey 2008-2015. 2018; Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/862506/computed-tomography-scan-examinations-in-turkey/. Erişim 18.05.2020.
• 2. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345-51.
• 3. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012;380:499-505.
• 4. Schauer DA, Linton OW. NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, medical exposure--are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 2009;97:1-5.
• 5. Schauer DA, Linton OW. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology 2009;253:293-6.
• 6. IAEA. International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. International Atomic Energy Agency. 1996 (Safety Series No:115).
• 7. Santos J, Foley S, Paulo G, McEntee MF, Rainford L. The establishment of computed tomography diagnostic reference levels in Portugal. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2014;158:307- 17.
• 8. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619-28.
• 9. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM, Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 2006;26:503-12.
• 10. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC, et al. Image gently: Ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:868-73.
• 11. Badawy MK, Galea M, Mong KS, U P. Computed tomography overexposure as a consequence of extended scan length. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2015;59:586-9.
• 12. Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:881-9.
• 13. Huda W, Mettler FA. Volume CT dose index and dose-length product displayed during CT: what good are they? Radiology 2011;258:236-42.
• 14. McCollough CH. Patient dose in cardiac computed tomography. Herz 2003;28:1-6.
• 15. Singh R, Szczykutowicz TP, Homayounieh F, et al. Radiation Dose for Multiregion CT Protocols: Challenges and Limitations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;213:1100-6.
• 16. Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL. U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Adult CT Examinations. Radiology 2017;284:120-33.