Adult patient radiation doses from non-cardiac CT examinations: a review of published results.
OBJECTIVE
CT is a valuable tool in diagnostic radiology but it is also associated with higher patient radiation doses compared with planar radiography. The aim of this article is to review patient dose for the most common types of CT examinations reported during the past 19 years.


METHODS
Reported dosimetric quantities were compared with the European diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). Effective doses were assessed with respect to the publication year and scanner technology (i.e. single-slice vs multislice).


RESULTS
Considerable variation of reported values among studies was attributed to variations in both examination protocol and scanner design. Median weighted CT dose index (CTDI(w)) and dose length product (DLP) are below the proposed DRLs; however, for individual studies the DRLs are exceeded. Median reported effective doses for the most frequent CT examinations were: head, 1.9 mSv (0.3-8.2 mSv); chest, 7.5 mSv (0.3-26.0 mSv); abdomen, 7.9 mSv (1.4-31.2 mSv); and pelvis, 7.6 mSv (2.5-36.5 mSv).


CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of mechanisms for dose reduction resulted in significantly lower patient effective doses for CT examinations of the head, chest and abdomen reported by studies published after 1995. Owing to the limited number of studies reporting patient doses for multislice CT examinations the statistical power to detect differences with single-slice scanners is not yet adequate.
Second Department of Radiology, Medical School, University of Athens, Greece.
I
I
Pantos
S
S
Thalassinou
S
S
Argentos
N L
NL
Kelekis
G
G
Panayiotakis
E P
EP
Efstathopoulos
D000328:Adult; D006801:Humans; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods
Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332
18082557
Br J Radiol. 2006 Jan;79(937):56-61
16421406
Eur Radiol. 2006 Jan;16(1):227-37
15711836
Radiographics. 2000 Nov-Dec;20(6):1787-806
11112829
Radiology. 2003 Jul;228(1):15-21
12832569
Eur Radiol. 1999;9(3):555-62
10087133
Br J Radiol. 2009 Dec;82(984):1010-8
19934069
Eur J Radiol. 2004 Jun;50(3):285-91
15145489
Radiology. 1998 Nov;209(2):327-9
9807555
Eur Radiol. 2003 Aug;13(8):1979-91
12687286
Eur Radiol. 1997;7(7):1127-32
9265689
Br J Radiol. 2001 Sep;74(885):779-81
11560823
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2006;121(2):128-35
16461483
Eur Radiol. 2006 Dec;16(12):2739-47
17031451
Rofo. 1995 Nov;163(5):383-7
8527750
Br J Radiol. 1998 Dec;71(852):1296-301
10319004
Eur Radiol. 2003 May;13(5):1148-53
12695839
Br J Radiol. 1999 Jun;72(858):556-61
10560337
J Radiol Prot. 2006 Jun;26(2):213-25
16738417
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2(6):470-6, 499-500
16352750
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):303-7
15933126
Br J Radiol. 2006 Dec;79(948):968-80
17213302
Eur Radiol. 2004 Jul;14(7):1275-84
15034744
Med Phys. 1999 Nov;26(11):2248-53
10587205
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Nov;187(5):W498-502
17056880
Radiology. 2007 Jun;243(3):775-84
17446525
J Nucl Med Technol. 2007 Dec;35(4):213-25; quiz 226-8
18006597
Br J Radiol. 1982 Jan;55(649):60-9
7053786
Eur J Radiol. 2006 Mar;57(3):461-7
16165335
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jul 5;46(1):147-54
15992649
Circulation. 2005 Oct 11;112(15):2318-23
16203914
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009 Sep;136(2):118-26
19687134
Br J Radiol. 2004 Jun;77(918):472-8
15151967
J Nucl Med Technol. 2008 Jun;36(2):57-68; quiz 75-6
18483143
Circulation. 2003 Feb 18;107(6):917-22
12591765
Med Phys. 1998 Apr;25(4):550-61
9571623
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Aug 2;46(3):552-7
16053973
Ann ICRP. 2000;30(4):7-45
11711158
Ann ICRP. 2007;37(1):1-79, iii
18069128
Radiographics. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):503-12
16549613
Radiographics. 2007 Jan-Feb;27(1):49-62
17234998
Med Phys. 1982 Mar-Apr;9(2):288-92
7087917
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2006 Apr;57(2):79-85
16944681