Automatic radiation dose monitoring for CT of trauma patients with different protocols: feasibility and accuracy. Issue 9 (September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Higashigaito, K.; Becker, A.S.; Sprengel, K.; Simmen, H.-P.; Wanner, G.; Alkadhi, H.
• Is Part Of: Clinical radiology. Volume 71:Issue 9(2016)
• Page Start: 905
• Page End: 911
• Publication Date: 2016-09
• Subjects: Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; Medical radiology; Radiotherapy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.04.023
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-9260

Abstract

Abstract : Aim: To demonstrate the feasibility and accuracy of automatic radiation dose monitoring software for computed tomography (CT) of trauma patients in a clinical setting over time, and to evaluate the potential of radiation dose reduction using iterative reconstruction (IR). Materials and methods: In a time period of 18 months, data from 378 consecutive thoraco-abdominal CT examinations of trauma patients were extracted using automatic radiation dose monitoring software, and patients were split into three cohorts: cohort 1, 64-section CT with filtered back projection, 200 mAs tube current–time product; cohort 2, 128-section CT with IR and identical imaging protocol; cohort 3, 128-section CT with IR, 150 mAs tube current–time product. Radiation dose parameters from the software were compared with the individual patient protocols. Image noise was measured and image quality was semi-quantitatively determined. Results: Automatic extraction of radiation dose metrics was feasible and accurate in all (100%) patients. All CT examinations were of diagnostic quality. There were no differences between cohorts 1 and 2 regarding volume CT dose index (CTDIvol ; p =0.62), dose–length product (DLP), and effective dose (ED, both p =0.95), while noise was significantly lower (chest and abdomen, both −38%, p <0.017). Compared to cohort 1, CTDIvol, DLP, and ED in cohort 3 were significantly lower (all −25%, p <0.017), similar to the noise in the chest (–32%) and abdomen (–27%, both p <0.017). Compared to cohort 2, CTDIvol (–28%), DLP, and ED (both –26%) in cohort 3 was significantly lower (all, p <0.017), while noise in the chest (+9%) and abdomen (+18%) was significantly higher (all, p <0.017). Conclusion: Automatic radiation dose monitoring software is feasible and accurate, and can be implemented in a clinical setting for evaluating the effects of lowering radiation doses of CT protocols over time. Highlights: Automatic dose monitoring software can be implemented into clinical routine for control of radiation dose in CT imaging. Automatic dose monitoring software is accurate and allows collecting data from large cohorts. Automatic dose monitoring has a major role in patients with polytrauma.