Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography.
OBJECTIVE
To measure and compare patient radiation dose from computed tomographic (CT) urography and conventional urography and to compare these doses with dose estimates determined from phantom measurements.


METHODS
Patient skin doses were determined by placing a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) strip (six TLD chips) on the abdomen of eight patients examined with CT urography and 11 patients examined with conventional urography. CT urography group consisted of two women and six men (mean age, 55.5 years), and conventional urography group consisted of six women and five men (mean age, 58.9 years). CT urography protocol included three volumetric acquisitions of the abdomen and pelvis. Conventional urography protocol consisted of acquisition of several images involving full nephrotomography and oblique projections. Mean and SD of measured patient doses were compared with corresponding calculated doses and with dose measured on a Lucite pelvic-torso phantom. Correlation coefficient (R(2)) was calculated to compare measured and calculated skin doses for conventional urography examination, and two-tailed P value significance test was used to evaluate variation in effective dose with patient size. Radiation risk was calculated from effective dose estimates.


RESULTS
Mean patient skin doses for CT urography measured with TLD strips and calculated from phantom data (CT dose index) were 56.3 mGy +/- 11.5 and 54.6 mGy +/- 4.1, respectively. Mean patient skin doses for conventional urography measured with TLD strips and calculated as entrance skin dose were 151 mGy +/- 90 and 145 mGy +/- 76, respectively. Correlation coefficient between measured and calculated skin doses for conventional urography examinations was 0.95. Mean effective dose estimates for CT urography and conventional urography were 14.8 mSv +/- 90.0 and 9.7 mSv +/- 3.0, respectively. Mean effective doses estimated for the pelvic-torso phantom were 15.9 mSv (CT urography) and 7.8 mSv (conventional urography).


CONCLUSIONS
Standard protocol for CT urography led to higher mean effective dose, approximately 1.5 times the radiation risk for conventional urography. Patient dose estimates should be taken into consideration when imaging protocols are established for CT urography.
Nawfel
Richard D
RD
Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA. nawfel@bwh.harvard.edu
Judy
Philip F
PF
Schleipman
A Robert
AR
Silverman
Stuart G
SG
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007668:Kidney / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010388:Pelvis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D012867:Skin / Q000528:radiation effects*; D013819:Thermoluminescent Dosimetry; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D014567:Urography