Table of Contents
ISRN Radiology
Volume 2013, Article ID 204346, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2013/204346
Clinical Study

A Survey of Organ Equivalent and Effective Doses from Diagnostic Radiology Procedures

1Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Center, Kitchener, ON, Canada N2G 1G3
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1
3Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 5P9
4Department of Oncology, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 5P9

Received 15 June 2012; Accepted 10 July 2012

Academic Editors: U. Bozlar and A. Labate

Copyright © 2013 Ernest K. Osei and Johnson Darko. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. P. C. Shrimpton and B. F. Wall, “The increasing importance of X ray computed tomography as a source of medical exposure,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 57, no. 1–4, pp. 413–415, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. R. R. Cruces, J. García-Granados, F. J. Diaz Romero, and J. Hernández Armas, “Estimation of effective dose in some digital angiographic and interventional procedures,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 71, pp. 42–47, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. ICRP-103, The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Annals of ICRP, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 2007.
  4. ICRP-60, International Commission on Radiological Protection: Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection—ICRP 60. Annals of ICRP 21, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1990.
  5. ICRP-26, International Commission on Radiological, Protection: Radiological Protection and Safety in Medicine. Annals of the ICRP 26 (ICRP Publication 73), Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1990.
  6. European Commission, “European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography EUR, 16262 EN, Luxemburg.Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,” 1999.
  7. D. Hart, D. C. Jones, and B. F. Wall, “Normalised organ doses for medical X-ray examinations calculated using monte carlo techniques,” Tech. Rep. NRPB-SR262, Chilton, NRPB, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  8. P. C. Shrimpton . Hillier MC. Lewis MA and M. Dunn, “National Radiological Protection Board, Doses from Computed Tomography (CT) Examinations in the UK—2003 Review,” Tech. Rep., Chilton, Didcot, UK, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  9. P. C. Shrimpton, D. G. Jones, M. C. Hillier et al., “Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: dosimetric aspects,” Tech. Rep. NRPB R-249: 21-32, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  10. D. G. Jones and P. C. Shrimpton, “Normalized organ doses for X-ray CT calculated using Monte Carlo techniques,” NRPB Software Report 250, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  11. C. H. McCollough, J. A. Christner, and J. M. Kofler, “How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk?” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 194, no. 4, pp. 890–896, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, “Radiation dosimetry: X-rays generated at potentials of 5 to 150 kV,” Tech. Rep. 17, ICRU, Washington, DC, USA, 1970. View at Google Scholar
  13. M. T. B. Toossi1 and S. M. Dastgherdi, “An assessment of organ and effective dose of patients who undertake CT examinations in two teaching hospitals of Mashhad & Isfahan,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, pp. 1–7, Madrid, Spain, 2004.
  14. J. Geleijns, J. G. Van Unnik, J. Zoetelief, D. Zweers, and J. J. Broerse, “Comparison of two methods for assessing patient dose from computed tomography,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 67, no. 796, pp. 360–365, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. K. A. Jessen, P. C. Shrimpton, J. Geleijns, W. Panzer, and G. Tosi, “Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 165–172, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. E. M. Thomas and D. R. C. Tingey, “Radiation doses from computed tomography in Australia,” Australian Radiation Laboratory Report ARL/TR123, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  17. J. E. Ngaile and P. K. Msaki, “Estimation of patient organ doses from CT examinations in Tanzania,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 80–94, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. E. K. Osei and R. Barnett, “Software for the estimation of organ equivalent and effective doses from diagnostic radiology procedures,” Journal of Radiological Protection, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 361–376, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. E. K. Osei and K. Faulkner, “Fetal doses from radiological examinations,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 72, pp. 773–780, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Khursheed, M. C. Hillier, P. C. Shrimpton, and B. F. Wall, “Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 75, no. 898, pp. 819–830, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. Imaging Performance Assessments of CT , (ImPACT), “CT patient dosimetry spreadsheet (V 1. 0. 4),” 2011, http://www.impactscan.org/ctdosimetry.htm.
  22. C. M. Ma, C. W. Coffey, L. A. DeWerd et al., “AAPM protocol for 40-300 kV X-ray beam dosimetry in radiotherapy and radiobiology,” Medical Physics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 868–893, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. Commission of the European Communities, “European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images,” Report EUR 16260 EN, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  24. International Atomic Energy Agency, “International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources,” IAEA Safety Series 115, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  25. O. Ciraj, S. Marković, and D. Košutić, “First results on patient dose measurements from conventional diagnostic radiology procedures in Serbia and Montenegro,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 330–335, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. G. Compagnone, L. Pagan, and C. Bergamini, “Local diagnostic reference levels in standard X-ray examinations,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 54–63, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. HPA Recommended national reference doses for individual radiographs on adultpatients, 2000, http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/UnderstandingRadiation/UnderstandingRadiationTopics/MedicalRadiation/DiagnosticRadiology/diag_NrdRadio2000/.
  28. G. Compagnone, L. Pagan, M. C. Baleni, F. L. Calzolaio, L. Barozzi, and C. Bergamini, “Patient dose in digital projection radiography,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 129, no. 1–3, pp. 135–137, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. B. F. Wall and D. Hart, “Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations: report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 70, pp. 437–439, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. D. Hart and B. F. Wall, “UK population dose from medical X-ray examinations,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 285–291, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. J. Clarke, K. Cranley, J. Robinson, P. H. S. Smith, and A. Workman, “Application of draft European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 73, no. 865, pp. 43–50, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. H. Y. Tsai, C. J. Tung, C. C. Yu, and Y. S. Tyan, “Survey of computed tomography scanners in Taiwan: dose descriptors, dose guidance levels, and effective doses,” Medical Physics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1234–1243, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. D. Origgi, S. Vigorito, G. Villa, M. Bellomi, and G. Tosi, “Survey of computed tomography techniques and absorbed dose in Italian hospitals: a comparison between two methods to estimate the dose-length product and the effective dose and to verify fulfilment of the diagnostic reference levels,” European Radiology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 227–237, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. J. E. Aldrich, A. M. Bilawich, and J. R. Mayo, “Radiation doses to patients receiving computed tomography examinations in British Columbia,” Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 79–85, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. European Commission, “Radiation protection 109. Guidance on diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for medical exposures. luxembourg: office for official publications of the European Communities,” 1999.
  36. P. C. Shrimpton, M. C. Hillier, M. A. Lewis, and M. Dunn, “Doses from computed tomography examinations in the UK—2003 review,” Tech. Rep. NRPB-W67, Chilton, NRPB, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  37. G. Brix, H. D. Nagel, G. Stamm et al., “Radiation exposure in multi-slice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey,” European Radiology, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1979–1991, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus