Radiation protection dosimetry · 2024
Radiation dose assessment of pediatric computed tomography of the chest: the need to consider patient size.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Döwich Vanessa, Torres Felipe Soares, Nietto Andressa Lima, Timm Vitor Silva, Anés Maurício, Bacelar Alexandre, Maróstica Paulo José Cauduro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the radiation dose of chest computed tomography (CT) examinations of pediatric patients and the extent to which volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) underestimates radiation dose in comparison to size specific dose estimates (SSDE).
METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study of consecutive unenhanced pediatric (age <18 years) chest CTs between October 2015 and October 2016. Radiation dose as well as demographic and clinical data were recorded from 133 chest CTs. Patients were grouped into 4 categories based on mean effective diameter of the chest. SSDE was generated for each patient according to the water equivalent and effective diameter and compared to CTDIvol. Factors associated with higher radiation doses were assessed.
RESULTS: CTDIvol underestimated radiation dose by 54.7%, 47.6%, 40.2%, and 31.2% (P < .001) for effective diameter groups 1 to 4, respectively, when compared to SSDE (calculated according to the water equivalent). When calculated according to the effective diameter, CTDIvol underestimated radiation dose by 47.6%, 39.4%, 27%, and 12.3% (P < .001) for effective diameter groups 1 to 4, respectively, when compared to SSDE. CT dose parameters, age, weight, Dw, and mean effective diameter were variables associated with higher radiation doses.
CONCLUSION: CTDIvol systematically underestimated radiation dose in comparison to SSDE in pediatric patients submitted to chest CT and should not be used as the primary parameter to monitor CT protocols in these patients. SSDE calculated according to effective diameter also underestimates the radiation dose compared to SSDE calculated based on water equivalent.
METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study of consecutive unenhanced pediatric (age <18 years) chest CTs between October 2015 and October 2016. Radiation dose as well as demographic and clinical data were recorded from 133 chest CTs. Patients were grouped into 4 categories based on mean effective diameter of the chest. SSDE was generated for each patient according to the water equivalent and effective diameter and compared to CTDIvol. Factors associated with higher radiation doses were assessed.
RESULTS: CTDIvol underestimated radiation dose by 54.7%, 47.6%, 40.2%, and 31.2% (P < .001) for effective diameter groups 1 to 4, respectively, when compared to SSDE (calculated according to the water equivalent). When calculated according to the effective diameter, CTDIvol underestimated radiation dose by 47.6%, 39.4%, 27%, and 12.3% (P < .001) for effective diameter groups 1 to 4, respectively, when compared to SSDE. CT dose parameters, age, weight, Dw, and mean effective diameter were variables associated with higher radiation doses.
CONCLUSION: CTDIvol systematically underestimated radiation dose in comparison to SSDE in pediatric patients submitted to chest CT and should not be used as the primary parameter to monitor CT protocols in these patients. SSDE calculated according to effective diameter also underestimates the radiation dose compared to SSDE calculated based on water equivalent.