Center experience and other determinants of patient radiation exposure during prostatic artery embolization: a retrospective study in three Scandinavian centers.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of center experience and a variety of patient- and procedure-related factors on patient radiation exposure during prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in three Scandinavian centers with different PAE protocols and levels of experience. Understanding factors that influence radiation exposure is crucial in effective patient selection and procedural planning. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for 352 consecutive PAE procedures from January 2015 to June 2020 at the three centers. Dose area product (DAP (Gy·cm2)) was selected as the primary outcome measure of radiation exposure. Multiple patient- and procedure-related explanatory variables were collected and correlated with the outcome variable. A multiple linear regression model was built to determine significant predictors of increased or decreased radiation exposure as reflected by DAP. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in DAP between the centers. Intended unilateral PAE (p = 0.03) and each 10 additional patients treated (p = 0.02) were significant predictors of decreased DAP. Conversely, increased patient body mass index (BMI, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001), and number of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) acquisitions (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of increased DAP. CONCLUSIONS: To minimize patient radiation exposure during PAE radiologists may, in collaboration with clinicians, consider unilateral embolization, pre-interventional CTA for procedure planning, using predominantly anteroposterior (AP) projections, and limiting the use of cone-beam CT (CBCT) and fluoroscopy. KEY POINTS: • Growing center experience and intended unilateral embolization decrease patient radiation exposure during prostatic artery embolization. • Patient BMI, fluoroscopy time, and number of DSA acquisitions are associated with increased DAP during procedures. • Large variation in radiation exposure between the centers may reflect the use of CTA before and CBCT during the procedure.

Paediatric diagnostic reference levels for common radiological examinations using the European guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility to determine regional diagnostic reference levels (RDRLs) for paediatric conventional and CT examinations using the European guidelines and to compare RDRLs derived from weight and age groups, respectively. METHODS: Data were collected from 31 hospitals in 4 countries, for 7 examination types for a total of 2978 patients. RDRLs were derived for each weight and age group, respectively, when the total number of patients exceeded 15. RESULTS: It was possible to derive RDRLs for most, but not all, weight-based and age-based groups for the seven examinations. The result using weight-based and age-based groups differed substantially. The RDRLs were lower than or equal to the European and recently published national DRLs. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to derive RDRLs. However, a thorough review of the clinical indications and methodologies has to be performed previous to data collection. This study does not support the notion that DRLs derived using age and weight groups are exchangeable. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Paediatric DRLs should be derived using weight-based groups with access to the actual weight of the patients. DRLs developed using weight differ markedly from those developed with the use of age. There is still a need to harmonize the method to derive solid DRLs for paediatric radiological examinations.

Establishing paediatric diagnostic reference levels using reference curves - A feasibility study including conventional and CT examinations.

PURPOSE: To derive Regional Diagnostic Reference Levels (RDRL) for paediatric conventional and CT examinations using weight-based DRL curves and compare the outcome with DRL derived using the weight groups. METHODS: Data from 1722 examinations performed at 29 hospitals in four countries were included. DRL was derived for four conventional x-ray (chest, abdomen, pelvis, hips/joints) and two types of CT examinations (thorax, abdomen). DRL curves were derived using an exponential fit to the data using weight as an independent variable and the respective radiation dose indices (PKA, CTDIvol, DLP) as dependent variables. DRL was also derived for weight groups for comparison. The result was compared with national diagnostic reference level (NDRL) curves. RESULTS: The derived curves show similarities with the NDRL curves available and corresponded sufficiently well with DRL for weight groups using the same data set, if sufficient number of data was available. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that weight-based DRL curves are a feasible approach and could be used together with DRL for weight groups. The main advantage of DRL curves is its application in the clinic. When the examination frequency is low, time to collect enough data to establish typical values for one or several weight groups may be unreasonably long. The curve provides the means to compare dose level faster and with fewer data points.