Increased radiation doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations is well known with proven risks of inducing cancers for effective dose >100 mSv (according to some studies >50 mSvs).
Purpose
To establish the diagnostic reference level (DRL) for low-dose renal CT examinations in the evaluation of renal stones.
Material and Methods
Patient demographics, CT parameters, and dosimetric indices (CTDIvol and dose length product [DLP]) were collected from 12 tertiary hospitals that routinely perform renal CT in the detection and evaluation of renal stones over a period of 12 weeks. Data obtained from 1418 average-sized patients in each category were recorded. The median values of dosimetric indices for each site were calculated. The DRL values were defined as the 75th percentile of the distribution of the median values of CTDIvol and DLP.
Results
There were no significant differences between patient demographics. Mean kVp and mAs for protocols were 121.67 ± 11.56 and 226.91 ± 78.44, respectively. The CTDIvol values were in the range of 2–36.2 mGy, while the DLP values were in the range of 43–1942 mGy.cm. The DRL for the CTDIvol was 16.15 mGy and for the DLP 851.77 mGy.cm. The local median values of CDTIvol and DLP are higher than DRL in two hospitals.
Conclusion
Comparison of local median values of CDTIvol and DLP with DRL suggests the needs of an optimization strategy in some hospitals.
SchoenfeldEMPekowPSShiehM-S, et al.The diagnosis and management of patients with renal colic across a sample of US hospitals: high CT utilization despite low rates of admission and inpatient urologic intervention. PLoS One2017;12:e0169160.
CourseyCACasalinoDDRemerEM, et al.ACR Appropriateness Criteria® acute onset flank pain–suspicion of stone disease. Ultrasound Q2012;28:227–233.
4.
KambadakoneAREisnerBHCatalanoOA, et al.New and evolving concepts in the imaging and management of urolithiasis: urologists’ perspective. Radiographics2010;30:603–623.
5.
RoyCTuchmannCGuthS, et al.Scanner hélicoïdal de l’appareil urinaire: principales applications. J Radiol2000;81:1071–1081.
6.
El-MerhiFMohamadMHaydarA, et al. Qualitative and quantitative radiological analysis of non-contrast CT is a strong indicator in patients with acute pyelonephritis. The Am J Emerg Med2018;36:589–593.
7.
NiemannTKollmannTBongartzG. Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol2008;191:396–401.
8.
TackDSourtzisSDelpierreI, et al.Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. Am J Roentgenol2003;180:305–311.
9.
KlunerCHeinPAGrallaO, et al.Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi?J Comput Assist Tomogr2006;30:44–50.
10.
AtherMHFaizullahKFAchakzaiIA, et al.Alternate and incidental diagnoses on noncontrast-enhanced spiral computed tomography for acute flank pain. Urol J2009;6:14–18.
11.
SamimMGossSLutyS, et al.Incidental findings on CT for suspected renal colic in emergency department patients: prevalence and types in 5,383 consecutive examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr2015;12:63–69.
12.
SungMKSinghSKalraMK. Current status of low dose multi-detector CT in the urinary tract. World J Radiol2011;3:56.
13.
CollDMVaranelliMJSmithRC. Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol2002;178:101–103.
14.
KatzSISalujaSBrinkJA, et al.Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol2006;186:1120–1124.
15.
RodgerFRoditiGAboumarzoukOM. Diagnostic accuracy of low and ultra-low dose CT for identification of urinary tract stones: a systematic review. Urol Int2018;100:375–385.
16.
Smith-BindmanRLipsonJMarcusR, et al.Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med2009;169:2078–2086.
17.
De GonzálezABMaheshMKimK-P, et al.Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med2009;169:2071–2077.
18.
HenschkeCIMcCauleyDIYankelevitzDF, et al.Early lung cancer action project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. The Lancet1999;354:99–105.
19.
SwensenSJJettJRHartmanTE, et al.CT screening for lung cancer: five-year prospective experience. Radiology2005;235:259–265.
20.
van GelderREVenemaHWSerlieIW, et al.CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology2002;224:25–33.
21.
IannacconeRCatalanoCMangiapaneF, et al.Colorectal polyps: detection with low-dose multi–detector row helical CT colonography versus two sequential colonoscopies. Radiology2005;237:927–937.
22.
HagtvedtTAaløkkenTNøtthellenJ, et al.A new low-dose CT examination compared with standard-dose CT in the diagnosis of acute sinusitis. Eur Radiol2003;13:976–980.
23.
TackDWidelecJDe MaertelaerV, et al.Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol2003;181:939–944.
24.
RawashdehMMcEnteeMZaitounM, et al.Knowledge and practice of computed tomography exposure parameters amongst radiographers in Jordan. Comput Biol Med2018;102:132–137.
25.
SpielmannALHeneghanJPLeeLJ, et al.Decreasing the radiation dose for renal stone CT: a feasibility study of single-and multidetector CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol2002;178:1058–1062.
26.
KeyzerCTackDDe MaertelaerV, et al.Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi–detector row CT. Radiology2004;232:164–172.
27.
TackDBohyPPerlotI, et al.Suspected acute colon diverticulitis: imaging with low-dose unenhanced multi–detector row CT. Radiology2005;237:189–196.
28.
KulkarniNMUppotRNEisnerBH, et al.Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go?Radiology2012;265:158–166.
29.
WinklehnerABlumeIWinklhoferS, et al.Iterative reconstructions versus filtered back-projection for urinary stone detection in low-dose CT. Acad Radiol2013;20:1429–1435.
30.
GervaiseANauletPBeuretF, et al.Low-dose CT with automatic tube current modulation, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and low tube voltage for the diagnosis of renal colic: impact of body mass index. AJR Am J Roentgenol2014;202:553–560.
31.
WangJKangTArepalliC, et al.Half-dose non-contrast CT in the investigation of urolithiasis: image quality improvement with third-generation integrated circuit CT detectors. Abdom Imaging2015;40:1255–1262.
32.
GlazerDIMaturenKECohanRH, et al.Assessment of 1 mSv urinary tract stone CT with model-based iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol2014;203:1230–1235.
33.
LukasiewiczABhargavan-ChatfieldMCoombsL, et al.Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: a report from the American college of radiology national radiology data registry. Radiology2014;271:445–451.
34.
MohamadFLinaKGhidaA, et al.National diagnostic reference levels have a lot of potential but a long way to go. A systematic review on the current status of adult diagnostic reference levels in head, chest and abdominopelvic Computed Tomography. J Radiol Prot2020;40:R71.
35.
European Commission. Diagnostic reference levels in thirty-six European countries. Part 2/2. Radiat Prot2014;180:1–73.
36.
European Society of Radiology. Summary of the European directive 2013/59/Euratom: essentials for health professionals in radiology. Insights Imaging2015;6:411–417.
37.
European Commission. Radiation Protection 109. Guidance on diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for medical exposures. XX: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985, 1999, Part 2/2. (EU Publications Office, Luxembourg).
38.
RawashdehMAbdelrahmanMZaitounM, et al.Diagnostic reference levels for paediatric CT in Jordan. J Radiol Prot2019;39:1060.
39.
Smith-BindmanRWangYChuP, et al.International variation in radiation dose for computed tomography examinations: prospective cohort study. BMJ2019;364:k4931.
40.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. White paper: initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, 2010. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199994.htm.
41.
Smith-BindmanR. Is computed tomography safe. N Engl J Med2010;363:1–4.
42.
YonekuraY. Diagnostic reference levels based on latest surveys in Japan–Japan DRLs 2015. Japanese Network for Research and Information on Medical Exposure. XX: Japan Network for Research and Information on Medical Exposure (J-RIME),2019. Jpn Netw Res Inf Med Expo 2019;1:11–11.
43.
RawashdehMSaadeCZaitounM, et al.Establishment of diagnostic reference levels in cardiac computed tomography. J Appl Clin Med Phys2019;20:181–186.
44.
SantosJFoleySPauloG, et al.The establishment of computed tomography diagnostic reference levels in Portugal. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2014;158:307–317.
BongartzGGoldingSJurikA, et al.Quality criteria for multislice computed tomography. Results from a European concerted action on CT (FIGM-CT-2000-20078) appendix B: European field survey on MSCT. Tech Rep2004;1:20–25.
47.
RawashdehMSaadeC. Radiation dose reduction considerations and imaging patterns of ground glass opacities in coronavirus: risk of over exposure in computed tomography. Radiol Med2021;126:380–387.
48.
NgaileJMsakiPKazemaR. Towards establishment of the national reference dose levels from computed tomography examinations in Tanzania. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2006;26:213–225.
49.
SmithTBAbadiESauerT, et al. In vivo noise texture estimation: development and validation of an automated methodology. Proc SPIE 11312, Med Imaging2020;1:10–15.
50.
RiaFDavisJTSolomonJB, et al.Expanding the concept of diagnostic reference levels to noise and dose reference levels in CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol2019;213:889–894.
