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

CMS, Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating, national distribution, quailty of care
News | Business| July 26, 2016
July 25, 2016 — The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it expects to launch its new Over
UltraSPECT, Xpress3.Cardiac, nuclear imaging, RWJPE, New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Physician Enterprise
News | SPECT Imaging| July 25, 2016
UltraSPECT Inc. announced recently that Robert Wood Johnson Physician Enterprise (RWJPE), a multi-specialty, community-...
Siemens Healthineers, Enterprise Services, ES, U.S. launch
Technology | Cardiac Imaging| July 19, 2016
July 19, 2016 — Siemens Healthineers recently introduced an expanded Services portfolio, known as Enterprise Services
CT, computed tomography, radiation safety, best practices, pediatric patients
News | Computed Tomography (CT)| July 14, 2016
Alternative imaging procedures, radiation safety and parent education should be the top priorities when considering...
Sponsored Content | Videos | Computed Tomography (CT)| July 08, 2016
Interview with Claudio Smuclovisky, M.D., FACC, FSCCT, director of South Florida Imaging Cardiovascular Institute, Ho
Sponsored Content | Videos | CT Angiography (CTA)| July 08, 2016
Interview with Patricia Dickson, LRT (CT), assistant director, diagnostic and outpatient services, Capital Cardiology
Sponsored Content | Videos | Computed Tomography (CT)| July 08, 2016
An interview with Jonathan Leipsic, M.D., FSCCT, chairman of the department of radiology, St.
Sponsored Content | Videos | Computed Tomography (CT)| July 07, 2016
DAIC/ITN editor Dave Fornell shows some of the most innovative new cardiac CT and angiography technologies from sessi
Sponsored Content | Videos | Computed Tomography (CT)| July 07, 2016
An interview with Matthew Budoff, M.D., FACC, director of cardiac CT, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., a
Sponsored Content | Videos | Computed Tomography (CT)| July 06, 2016
An interview with Leslee Shaw, Ph.D, FACC, FASNC, FAHA, co-director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Ins
Overlay Init