Dave Fornell, DAIC Editor

Dave Fornell, Editor DAIC

Blog | Dave Fornell, DAIC Editor | July 23, 2013

Not Everyone is on the Same Page to Lower Radiation Dose

By Dave Fornell, DAIC Editor

Finding ways to lower patient radiation dose from both medical imaging and interventional cardiology has become a major trend. However, when vendors start talking dose, it is important to realize there are no set industry standards agreed upon by manufacturers to calculate dose. For this reason, I call into question vendors’ statistics of how much their technology can lower dose by up to 20, 50 or even 80 percent.  While new technologies such as iterative reconstruction, more sensitive detectors and ECG gating do indeed lower dose, quantifying it can be a moving target. 

DAIC created a comparison chart for technologies to help lower computed tomography (CT) dose (see Page 34).  Vendors were asked, “How does your system calculate estimated dose?” As an example, we asked what they use as a conversion factor to calculate dose in MilliSieverts (mSv) based on dose-length product (DLP) or CT dose index volume (CTDlvol) found on a scan’s DICOM header.  To our surprise, this central question of how vendors arrive at their dose statistics was not answered by anyone. I wrote back posing this question again and only received responses from GE and Philips — the rest declined to comment.  The bottom line is that there are no industry standards agreed upon by manufacturers. 

“There have been publications to estimate effective dose from DLP or CTDI through conversion factors and there are organ dose simulations you can calculate using Monte Carlo techniques, however each method has its own level of uncertainty,” said Leslie Lakis, Philips senior public relations manager, imaging systems. “Therefore, physicists are left to use whatever effective dose conversion they prefer until the scientific community formally adopts a standard method for effective dose conversion.”

Ken Denison, global marketing director, CT, global MICT dose leader, GE Healthcare, said each manufacturer takes measurements on 16 and 32 cm water phantoms for a range of parameters (kVp, mA, slice thickness, pitch, etc.) and this allows them to then estimate the exposure using CTDIvol. However, he said GE does not provide an estimate for whole-body effective dose on its systems. “This is because there are different k-factors that may be used to convert DLP to and estimate of whole-body effective dose. Different users may choose which factors to use differently,” he said. 

Due to the variability cited, I often wonder if true apples-to-apples comparisons between vendors’ technologies are possible. Also, as more states consider laws requiring providers to record patient dose, what measure is being used?  It must be realized that all dose calculations are based on 16 and 32 cm phantoms, which are are not real people and most patients are 16 or 32 cm across. In addition, each patient body habitus impacts the individual level of dose, so all dose measures are really a best guess, not an exact science.

Related Content

Claudio Smuclovisky

Claudio Smuclovisky

Sponsored Content | Webinar | Computed Tomography (CT)| October 07, 2015
This webinar will provide an overview of the use and purpose of next generation model based reconstruction for cardia
ORSIF, radiation exposure for interventionalists, greater on left side of head, Ehtisham Mahmud
Feature | Radiation Dose Management| October 06, 2015
The results of a research study indicate that interventional cardiologists receive “very high” radiation exposure...
Beaumont Hospital Royal Oak, first in Michigan, FFR-CT, HeartFlow Inc., heart failure

Image courtesy of HeartFlow Inc.

News | FFR Catheters| October 05, 2015
Beaumont Hospital - Royal Oak is the first in Michigan and one of just a handful in the United States to offer...
raysafe, i2, staff dose monitoring
News | Radiation Dose Management| October 01, 2015
October 1,2015 — The first and only system that delivers real-time X-ray radiation dose monitoring for physicians and
SHAPE, task force, CT calcium scoring, carotid artery ultrasound, SHAPE Trial advisory meeting
News | CT Angiography (CTA)| September 24, 2015
SHAPE, The Society for Heart Attack Prevention and Eradication, met with an international contingent of leading...
Hansen Medical, CIRSE 2015, Magellan robotic catheter, cath lab, radiation safety, embolization procedures

Magellan Robotic System image courtesy of Hansen Medical Inc.

News | Interventional Radiology| September 22, 2015
Hansen Medical Inc. announced it will exhibit its Magellan robotic system at the Cardiovascular and Interventional...
spectral CT, Philips, IQon

Radiologists using the Philips spectral CT software to view a spectral CT image reconstruction at various energy levels.

Technology | Computed Tomography (CT)| September 09, 2015
September 9, 2015 — The U.S.
FFR-CT, HeartFlow, PLATFORM trial, ESC 2015, ICA, fractional flow reserve, computed tomography

Image courtesy of HeartFlow Inc.

Feature | FFR Catheters| September 03, 2015
Results of the PLATFORM trial indicate fractional flow reserve computed tomography (FFR-CT) can obviate the need for...

An example of a FFR-CT study showing a 3-D reconstruction of the coronary tree and a color overlay of virtual FFR readings, including a severe blockage in need of revascularization in the left anterior decending artery. 

News | CT Angiography (CTA)| August 21, 2015
August 21, 2015 — Loyola University Medical Center is the first and only hospital in Illinois to offer a new, noninva
Corindus, Corpath, radiation dose monitoring, cath lab, vascular robotic system

The Corindus Corpath vascular robotic system.

Technology | Radiation Dose Management| August 19, 2015
Corindus Vascular Robotics Inc. and Unfors RaySafe Inc., a Fluke Biomedical Company, announced a distribution agreement...
Overlay Init