Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb;67(1):88-95.
doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2015.07.002. Epub 2015 Nov 19.

Radiation Dose Survey for Common Computed Tomography Exams: 2013 British Columbia Results

Affiliations
Free article

Radiation Dose Survey for Common Computed Tomography Exams: 2013 British Columbia Results

Yogesh Thakur et al. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016 Feb.
Free article

Abstract

In 2013 Health Canada conducted a national survey of computed tomography (CT) radiation usage. We analysed contributions from all 7 public health authorities in the province of British Columbia, which covered scanner age, number of slices, and common adult protocols (≥ 19 years: 70 ± 20 kg, head, chest, abdomen/pelvis, and trunk). Patient doses were recorded for common protocols. Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) was calculated using scanner data with >10 patient doses recorded for each protocol. Data was analysed based on image reconstruction (filtered backprojection vs iterative reconstruction [IR] vs IR available but not in use). Provincial response was 92%, with 59 of 64 CT data used for analysis. The average scanner age was 5.5 years old, with 39% of scanners installed between 2008-2013; 78.5% of scanners were multislice (>64 slices), and 44% of scanners had IR available. Overall British Columbia DRLs were: head = 1305, chest = 529, abdomen/pelvis = 819, and trunk = 1225. DRLs were consistent with Health Canada recommendations and other Canadian published values, but above international standards. For sites with IR available, less than 50% used this technology routinely for head, chest and trunk exams. Overall, use of IR reduced radiation usage between 11%-32% compared to filtered backprojection, while sites using IR vs IR available used 30%/43% less radiation for head/chest exams (P < .05). No significant difference was observed for abdomen/pelvis exams (P = .385). With the fast pace of CT technical advancement, DRLs should reflect the technology used, instead of just globally applied to anatomical regions. Federal guidelines should be updated at a higher frequency to reflect new technology. In addition, new technologies must be utilised to optimize image quality vs radiation usage.

Keywords: Computed tomography; Computed tomography dose; Diagnostic reference levels; Medical imaging; Radiation.

PubMed Disclaimer