Diagnostic reference levels and median doses for common clinical indications of CT: findings from an international registry.

OB JECTIVES: The European Society of Radiology identified 10 common indications for computed tomography (CT) as part of the European Study on Clinical Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs, EUCLID), to help standardize radiation doses. The objective of this study is to generate DRLs and median doses for these indications using data from the UCSF CT International Dose Registry. METHODS: Standardized data on 3.7 million CTs in adults were collected between 2016 and 2019 from 161 institutions across seven countries (United States of America (US), Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Israel, Japan). DRLs (75th percentile) and median doses for volumetric CT-dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) were assessed for each EUCLID category (chronic sinusitis, stroke, cervical spine trauma, coronary calcium scoring, lung cancer, pulmonary embolism, coronary CT angiography, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colic/abdominal pain, appendicitis), and US radiation doses were compared with European. RESULTS: The number of CT scans within EUCLID categories ranged from 8,933 (HCC) to over 1.2 million (stroke). There was greater variation in dose between categories than within categories (p < .001), and doses were significantly different between categories within anatomic areas. DRLs and median doses were assessed for all categories. DRLs were higher in the US for 9 of the 10 indications (except chronic sinusitis) than in Europe but with a significantly higher sample size in the US. CONCLUSIONS: DRLs for CTDIvol and DLP for EUCLID clinical indications from diverse organizations were established and can contribute to dose optimization. These values were usually significantly higher in the US than in Europe. KEY POINTS: • Registry data were used to create benchmarks for 10 common indications for CT identified by the European Society of Radiology. • Observed US radiation doses were higher than European for 9 of 10 indications (except chronic sinusitis). • The presented diagnostic reference levels and median doses highlight potentially unnecessary variation in radiation dose.

Analysis of Computed Tomography Radiation Doses Used for Lung Cancer Screening Scans.

Importance: The American College of Radiology (ACR) has recognized the importance of minimizing radiation doses used for lung cancer screening (LCS) computed tomography (CT). However, without standard protocols, doses could still be unnecessarily high, reducing screening margin of benefit. Objective: To characterize LCS CT radiation doses and identify factors explaining variation. Design, Setting, and Participants: We prospectively collected LCS examination dose metrics, from 2016 to 2017, at US institutions in the University of California, San Francisco International Dose Registry. Institution-level factors were collected through baseline survey. Mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models were estimated using forward variable selection. Results are presented as percentage excess dose and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The analysis was conducted between 2018 and 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Log-transformed measures of (1) mean volume CT dose index (CTDIvol, mGy), reflecting the average radiation dose per slice; (2) mean effective dose (ED, mSv), reflecting the total dose received and estimated future cancer risk; (3) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above ACR benchmarks (CTDIvol >3 mGy, ED >1 mSv); and (4) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above 75th percentile of registry doses (CTDIvol >2.7 mGy, ED >1.4 mSv). Results: Data were collected for 12 529 patients undergoing LCS CT scans performed at 72 institutions. Overall, 7232 participants (58%) were men, and the median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 60-70). Of 72 institutions, 15 (21%) had median CTDIvol and 47 (65%) had median ED above ACR guidelines. Institutions allowing any radiologists to establish protocols had 44% higher mean CTDIvol (mean dose difference [MDD], 44%; 95% CI, 19%-69%) and 27% higher mean ED (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 5%-50%) vs those limiting who established protocols. Institutions allowing any radiologist to establish protocols had higher odds of examinations exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 2.0-71.4), and 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 19.0; 95% CI, 1.9-186.7) or ED (OR, 8.5; 95% CI, 1.7-42.9). Having lead radiologists establish protocols resulted in lower odds of doses exceeding ACR ED guidelines (OR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.1). Employing external vs internal medical physicists was associated with increased odds of exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.8-20.8). Having medical physicists establish protocols was associated with decreased odds of exceeding 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59). Institutions reporting protocol updates as needed had 27% higher mean CTDIvol (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 8%-45%). Conclusions and Relevance: Facilities varied in LCS CT radiation dose distributions. Institutions limiting protocol creation to lead radiologists and having internal medical physicists had lower doses.

Methods for the Watch the Spot Trial. A Pragmatic Trial of More- versus Less-Intensive Strategies for Active Surveillance of Small Pulmonary Nodules.

Small pulmonary nodules are most often managed by surveillance imaging with computed tomography (CT) of the chest, but the optimal frequency and duration of surveillance are unknown. The Watch the Spot Trial is a multicenter, pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness trial with cluster randomization by hospital or health system that compares more- versus less-intensive strategies for active surveillance of small pulmonary nodules. The study plans to enroll approximately 35,200 patients with a small pulmonary nodule that is newly detected on chest CT imaging, either incidentally or by screening. Study protocols for more- and less-intensive surveillance were adapted from published guidelines. The primary outcome is the percentage of cancerous nodules that progress beyond American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition stage T1a. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported anxiety and emotional distress, nodule-related health care use, radiation exposure, and adherence with the assigned surveillance protocol. Distinctive aspects of the trial include: 1) the pragmatic integration of study procedures into existing clinical workflow; 2) the use of cluster randomization by hospital or health system; 3) the implementation and evaluation of a system-level intervention for protocol-based care; 4) the use of highly efficient, technology-enabled methods to identify and (passively) enroll participants; 5) reliance on data collected as part of routine clinical care, including data from electronic health records and state cancer registries; 6) linkage with state cancer registries for complete ascertainment of the primary study outcome; and 7) intensive engagement with a diverse group of patient and nonpatient stakeholders in the design and execution of the study.