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.

An Image Quality-informed Framework for CT Characterization.

Background Lack of standardization in CT protocol choice contributes to radiation dose variation. Purpose To create a framework to assess radiation doses within broad CT categories defined according to body region and clinical imaging indication and to cluster indications according to the dose required for sufficient image quality. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine metadata. CT examinations in adults from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019 from the University of California San Francisco International CT Dose Registry were grouped into 19 categories according to body region and required radiation dose levels. Five body regions had a single dose range (ie, extremities, neck, thoracolumbar spine, combined chest and abdomen, and combined thoracolumbar spine). Five additional regions were subdivided according to dose. Head, chest, cardiac, and abdomen each had low, routine, and high dose categories; combined head and neck had routine and high dose categories. For each category, the median and 75th percentile (ie, diagnostic reference level [DRL]) were determined for dose-length product, and the variation in dose within categories versus across categories was calculated and compared using an analysis of variance. Relative median and DRL (95% CI) doses comparing high dose versus low dose categories were calculated. Results Among 4.5 million examinations, the median and DRL doses varied approximately 10 times between categories compared with between indications within categories. For head, chest, abdomen, and cardiac (3 266 546 examinations [72%]), the relative median doses were higher in examinations assigned to the high dose categories than in examinations assigned to the low dose categories, suggesting the assignment of indications to the broad categories is valid (head, 3.4-fold higher [95% CI: 3.4, 3.5]; chest, 9.6 [95% CI: 9.3, 10.0]; abdomen, 2.4 [95% CI: 2.4, 2.5]; and cardiac, 18.1 [95% CI: 17.7, 18.6]). Results were similar for DRL doses (all P < .001). Conclusion Broad categories based on image quality requirements are a suitable framework for simplifying radiation dose assessment, according to expected variation between and within categories. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Mahesh in this issue.

Reference phantom selection in pediatric computed tomography using data from a large, multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: Radiation dose metrics vary by the calibration reference phantom used to report doses. By convention, 16-cm diameter cylindrical polymethyl-methacyrlate phantoms are used for head imaging and 32-cm diameter phantoms are used for body imaging in adults. Actual usage patterns in children remain under-documented. OBJECTIVE: This study uses the University of California San Francisco International CT Dose Registry to describe phantom selection in children by patient age, body region and scanner manufacturer, and the consequent impact on radiation doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 106,837 pediatric computed tomography (CT) exams collected between Jan. 1, 2015, and Nov. 2, 2020, in children up to 17 years of age from 118 hospitals and imaging facilities, we describe reference phantom use patterns by body region, age and manufacturer, and median and 75th-percentile dose-length product (DLP) and volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) doses when using 16-cm vs. 32-cm phantoms. RESULTS: There was relatively consistent phantom selection by body region. Overall, 98.0% of brain and skull examinations referenced 16-cm phantoms, and 95.7% of chest, 94.4% of abdomen and 100% of cervical-spine examinations referenced 32-cm phantoms. Only GE deviated from this practice, reporting chest and abdomen scans using 16-cm phantoms with some frequency in children up to 10 years of age. DLP and CTDIvol values from 16-cm phantom-referenced scans were 2-3 times higher than 32-cm phantom-referenced scans. CONCLUSION: REFERENCE PHANTOM SELECTION IS HIGHLY CONSISTENT, WITH A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ABDOMEN AND CHEST SCANS (~5%) USING 16-CM PHANTOMS IN YOUNGER CHILDREN, WHICH PRODUCES DLP VALUES APPROXIMATELY TWICE AS HIGH AS EXAMS REFERENCED TO 32-CM PHANTOMS.

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.