Evaluation of some spiral and sequential computed tomography protocols of adults used in three hospitals in Shiraz, Iran with American College of Radiology and European Commission guidelines
More details
Hide details
Publication date: 2018-06-18
Pol J Radiol, 2018; 83: 297-305
Use of computed tomography (CT) has increased considerably all over the world. In addition, there has been an increased demand for utilisation of CT scanning in Iran over the past decade, especially after introducing multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). It should be considered that making a mistake in the selection of scan parameters leads to patients receiving higher doses and having increased risk of cancer. All of these facts prompted us to compare six routine CT protocols in three hospitals in the city of Shiraz, and to compare the results with American College of Radiology (ACR) practice parameters and European Commission (EC) guidelines for dual- and multi-detector CT.

Material and methods:
In the studied hospitals, 10 adult patients were chosen randomly for every six protocols, taken by different technologists. Seven and 11 scan factors in sequential and spiral scans, respectively, were compared with ACR (2014) and EC guidelines (EC16262 & EC2004).

The majority of scan factors in sequential and the spiral protocols that were scrutinised met the guidelines. The CTDIvol and DLPs for sequential and spiral scans were lower than the dose reference level (DRL) pronounced by ACR in three CT departments, and they were compatible with the recommended dose by EC (16262) in a private hospital.

Based on accordance of CTDIvol with ACR measurements and incompatibility with EC (2004) in teaching hospitals, we concluded that the recorded doses should be compared with different criteria. A regular review of protocols, using special protocols for different pathologic circumstances and continual education for technologists in the three CT departments, are recommended.

Mettler Jr FA, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M, et al. Medical radiation exposure in the US in 2006: preliminary results. Health Physics 2008; 95: 502-507.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2277-2284.
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, et al. Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 2013; 346: f2360.
Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 2078-2086.
Radiology Administration Office. The Statistical Survey of Computed Tomography centers in Fars Province. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz 2015 [Unpublished data].
Bushberg JT, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2011.
Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R. Overuse of computed tomography and associated risks. Am Fam Phys 2011; 83: 1252-1254.
ACR Practice Parameter for Performing and Interpreting Diagnostic Computed Tomography (CT) Res. 35 – 2011, Amended 2014 (Res. 39). Available from www.acr.org. Accessed: 10 January 2016.
American College of Radiology, ACR practice guideline for diagnostic reference levels in medical x-ray imaging, 2002 (revised 2008). Available from www.acr.org. Accessed: 10 January 2016.
ACR-ASNR-SPR practice parameter for the performance of computed tomography (CT) of the extracranial head and neck; 2010, amended 2014 (Res. 39). Available from www.acr.org. Accessed: 10 January 2016.
ACR-ASNR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomography (CT) of the brain; 2010, amended 2014 (Res. 39). Available from www.acr.org. Accessed: 10 January 2016.
ACR-STR practice parameters for the performance of high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the lungs in adults. 2010, Amended 2014 (Res. 39). Available from: www.acr.org. Accessed: 10 January 2016.
Jessen K, Panzer W, Shrimpton P, et al. EUR 16262: European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg 2000.
ACR-SPR practice parameter for the performance of computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis; 2010, amended 2014 (Res. 39). Available from: www.acr.org. Accessed: 10 January 2016.
ACR-SCBT-MR-SPR practice parameter for the performance of thoracic computed tomography(CT); 2010, amended 2014 (Res. 39). Available from: www.acr.org. Accessed: 10 January 2016.
Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European guidelines for multislice computed tomography: appendix A. European Guidelines for Multislice Computed Tomography Funded by the European Commission, Brussels 2004.
Tack D, Gevenois PA, Abada H. Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomography. Springer, 2007.
McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, et al. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47: 27-40.
Zasler ND, Katz DI, Zafonte RD. Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice. Demos Medical 2012; P194-195.
Haaga JR, Dogra VS, Forsting M, et al. CT and MRI of the whole body. Mosby, Philadelphia 2009.
Hofer M, Manual CT. A  systematic approach to CT reading. Thieme Medical Publishers, New York 2011.
Kanal KM, Stewart BK, Kolokythas O, Shuman WP. Impact of operator-selected image noise index and reconstruction slice thickness on patient radiation dose in 64-MDCT. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 219-225.
Heggie J, Kay J, Lee W. Importance in optimization of multi-slice computed tomography scan protocols. Australas Radiol 2006; 50: 278-285.
Dougeni E, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. A  review of patient dose and optimisation methods in adult and paediatric CT scanning. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 665-683.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top