Radiation Doses to the Uterus and Ovaries in Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital
Article Sidebar
Views | PDF/EPUB Downloads:
55
/ 6
/ 9
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Computed tomography (CT) has remained an important tool in medical diagnosis. However the radiation dose imparted
to patients, especially to radiosensitive organs during a CT scan, continues to raise concern. Our aim was to determine the radiation
dose to the ovary and the uterus during routine abdomen/pelvis CT examinations at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
using appropriate dose computational methods.
Materials and Methods: Technical factors and parameters were obtained for three groups of 60 randomly selected patients who had abdominal CT examinations using three machines, namely; the CT/e, BrightSpeed S and Toshiba Aquilion 64. The scanning parameters were used to estimate the patient organ doses using measurements of CT dose indexes and organ doses obtained with the aid of the ImPACT CT Dosimetry Calculator SpreadSheet based on National Radiological Protection Board conversion factors.
Results: The mean total organ dose from the CT/e machine to the ovary was 11.15 ±2.48 (mGy) and to the uterus was 12.10 ±2.57 (mGy), and the mean total organ dose from the BrightSpeed S machine to the ovary was 39.2 ± 22.66 (mGy) and to the uterus was 43.05 ±24.88 (mGy), while the mean total organ dose from the Toshiba Aquilion 64 to the ovary was 33.07 ±16.86 (mGy) and to the uterus was 33.85 ±18.58 (mGy). These values were mostly comparable to but slightly higher than values of similar organ doses reported in the literature for Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. The doses to the ovary and uterus obtained varied from other international surveys by 3.8–12.9 mGy and 3.17–15.07 mGy, respectively, representing a 25–50% dose increase.
Conclusion: The organ doses to the ovary and the uterus at our facility are higher than those obtainable in other countries; however, this could be substantially minimized through optimization of CT scanning protocols.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
How to Cite
References
1. Task Group on Control of Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2000;30:7‑45.
2. Smith‑Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2078‑86.
3. UNSCEAR. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation; Report to the General Assembly, Vol. 1. UNSCEAR; 2000.
4. Mettler FA Jr, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA. CT scanning: Patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000;20:353‑9.
5. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation‑induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:289‑96.
6. Hidajat N, Mäurer J, Schröder RJ, Nunnemann A, Wolf M, Pauli K, et al. Relationships between physical dose quantities and patient dose in CT. Br J Radiol 1999;72:556‑61.
7. Lewis MA, Edyvean S, Sassi SA, Kiremidjian H, Keat N, Britten AJ. Estimating Patient dose on Current CT Scanners: Results of the ImPACT CT dose survey. London: ImPACT and Medical Physics‑St. George′s Hospital; 1997. Available from: http://www.impactscan.org/dosesurveysummary.htm. [Last accessed on 2013 Nov 30].
8. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA. Multisection CT protocols: Sex‑ and age‑specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose‑length product. Radiology 2010;257:158‑66.
9. Ngaile JE, Msaki PK. Estimation of patient organ doses from CT examinations in Tanzania. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2006;7:80‑94.
10. Shrimpton PC, Jones DG. Normalised organ doses for X‑ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques and a mathematical anthropomorphic phantom. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1993;49:241‑3.
11. Shrimpton P, Jones D, Hillier M, Wall B, Le Heron J, Faulkner K. Survey of CT Practice in the UK, Part 2: Dosimetric Aspects. NRPB ‑ R249; 1991.
12. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from Computed Tomography Examinations in the UK – Review. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). NRPB‑W67; 2003.
13. EC. European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography Report. EUR 16262. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 1999.
14. Nishizawa K, Maruyama T, Takayama M, Okada M, Hachiya J, Furuya Y. Determinations of organ doses and effective dose equivalents from computed tomographic examination. Br J Radiol 1991;64:20‑8.