Biomedical subjects

John E Aldrich

Publications and source records attributed to John E Aldrich.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT--IAEA-coordinated research project.

PURPOSE: To measure radiation doses for computed tomography (CT) of the head, chest, and abdomen and compare them with the diagnostic reference levels, as part of the International Atomic Energy Agency Research coordination project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The local ethics committees of all participating institutions approved the study protocol. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All scanners were helical single-section or multi-detector row CT systems. Six hundred thirty-three patients undergoing head (n = 97), chest (n = 243), or abdominal (n = 293) CT were included. Collected data included patient height, weight, sex, and age; tube voltage and tube current-time product settings; pitch; section thickness; number of sections; weighted or volumetric CT dose index; and dose-length product (DLP). The effective dose was also estimated and served as collective dose estimation data. RESULTS: Mean volumetric CT dose index and DLP values were below the European diagnostic reference levels: 39 mGy and 544 mGy . cm, respectively, at head CT; 9.3 mGy and 348 mGy . cm, respectively, at chest CT; and 10.4 mGy and 549 mGy . cm, respectively, at abdominal CT. Estimated effective doses were 1.2, 5.9, and 8.2 mSv, respectively. CONCLUSION: Comparison of CT results with diagnostic reference levels revealed the need for revisions, partly because the newer scanners have improved technology that facilitates lower patient doses.

Female↗

PubMed2006

Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography.

The surface doses to patients during chest, abdomen and pelvis radiography were measured over a period of 3 years, during which time computed radiography (CR) and digital radiography (DR) systems were introduced to replace film-screen systems. For film-screen and CR the surface doses were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters. For DR the surface doses were calculated from the dose-area product (DAP) meter readings. Measurements were made for each type of examination and detector type on 10 average-size patients. Measurements were made immediately after the new systems were introduced, and subsequently as adjustments were made to optimize dose and image quality. Published diagnostic reference levels were used as target values in this optimization. Initially, CR doses were the same as or higher than for film-screen, and the doses were lower for DR compared to film-screen. Subsequent clinical experience with the systems led to changes in the technique used for chest examinations both for CR and for DR. For CR, it was possible to change the algorithm and decrease the dose to one quarter of the initial value with acceptable image quality. For DR, it was decided to reduce noise by increasing the dose by a factor of two. No changes were made to abdomen or pelvic imaging techniques for either CR or DR. The final patient surface doses using CR were similar to published diagnostic reference doses; for DR, all patient doses were less than published reference levels.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2006

Radiation dose in abdominal computed tomography: the role of patient size and the selection of tube current.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an algorithm for selecting tube current for computed tomography (CT), based on patient weight, that produces abdominal CT images of consistent image quality. METHODS: We recorded body weight and radiation exposure parameters for 37 patients undergoing abdominal CT. Two radiologists blind to the CT technique independently graded 11 measures of image quality, using a 5-point (5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = acceptable, 2 = poor, and 1 = unacceptable) scale. These scores were averaged to generate an overall image quality score. Using linear regression, we found a target image noise level that corresponded to an overall image quality score of 4.5. We measured CT image noise in 9 uniformly attenuating regions of interest in the liver and abdominal aorta. We used linear regression to assess the relation between tube current and image noise. A prediction equation was developed to set the tube current in different-sized patients to produce images at the target noise level. Finally, we calculated the dose savings that would have resulted with this tube-current selection technique. RESULTS: Image noise was correlated with patient weight (r2 = 0.81). At an overall image quality score of 4.5, the noise was 16 HU. Using this target noise value, we determined the required tube current for each patient weight and found that the use of this technique would have reduced radiation exposure for all patients weighing less than 70 kg. The dose reduction for the smallest patient (35.4 kg) was 72%. CONCLUSION: To produce CT scans of similar quality, a simple prediction equation can be developed for any scanner to optimize radiation dose for patients of all body weights.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Radiation doses to patients receiving computed tomography examinations in British Columbia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diagnostic reference levels and effective radiation dose to patients from routine computed tomography (CT) examinations in the province of British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: The patient weight, height and computed tomography dose index or dose linear product (DLP) were recorded on study sheets for 1070 patients who were referred for clinically indicated routine CT examinations at 18 radiology departments in British Columbia. Sixteen of the scanners were multidetector row scanners. RESULTS: The average patient dose varied from hospital to hospital. The largest range was found for CT of the abdomen, for which the dose varied from 3.6 to 26.5 (average 10.1) mSv. For head CT, the range was 1.7 to 4.9 (average 2.8) mSv; for chest CT, it was 3.8 to 26 (average 9.3) mSv; for pelvis CT, it was 3.5 to 15.5 (average 9.0) mSv; and for abdomen-pelvis CT, it was 7.3 to 31.5 (average 16.3) mSv. Reference dose values were calculated for each exam. These DLP values are as follows: head, 1300 mGy cm; chest, 600 mGy cm; abdomen, 920 mGy cm; pelvis, 650 mGy cm; and abdomen-pelvis, 1100 mGy cm. CONCLUSION: Among hospitals, there was considerable variation in the DLP and patient radiation dose for a specific exam. Reference doses and patient doses were higher than those found in similar recent surveys carried out in the United Kingdom and the European Union. Patient doses were similar to those found in a recent survey in Germany.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Assessment of PACS display systems.

This work describes our experience in reviewing the performance criteria for display systems and how we have implemented a practical approach to the assessment of the workstation environment in a large tertiary care hospital. The acceptance criteria contained in the draft report of Topic Group 18 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) were used as a basis for assessment of primary and secondary displays. A telescopic photometer was used to measure the maximum luminance and the contrast ratio of the image for the displays used in our radiology department and in the operating and emergency rooms using the standard Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) pattern, in ambient light and with light decreased as much as possible. About half of the displays met the AAPM criteria for minimum luminance and contrast ratio in low light. None of the systems met the contrast ratio criteria in ambient light. The challenges in improving the performance and calibrating displays are discussed.

Computer Terminals↗

PubMed2005

Change in patient doses from radiological examinations at the Vancouver General Hospital, 1991-2002.

OBJECTIVE: Much concern has been expressed over the radiation doses and potential harm from x-ray examinations. However, there have been few longitudinal studies in North America. A survey of doses from radiological examinations in Canada was last carried out in 1995. This study was undertaken to estimate the change in the number of patient examinations and patient dose since this last Canadian survey. METHODS: The number of radiological examinations and numbers of patients for the years 1991 to 2002 were obtained from workload statistics, which are reported to the Canadian government each year. Radiological examinations were of the following type: general, gastrointestinal or genitourinary, angiography, and computed tomography (CT). Average doses were calculated for each group of examinations. RESULTS: From 1991 to 2002 there was an increase of 28% in the total number of x-ray examinations performed. The proportion of most types of examination has stayed fairly constant, except for CT, which has increased fourfold in the last 8 years. The striking change is the increased contribution to patient effective dose from CT since 1996, these examinations now comprising nearly 60% of the total patient dose. The average annual effective dose per patient has nearly doubled-from 3.3 mSv in 1991 to 6.0 mSv in 2002. CONCLUSION: This paper provides a simple method for any Canadian hospital to estimate the radiation dose to its patients. At the Vancouver General Hospital (VGH), the number of patient examinations has increased by 28%, but the average annual patient effective dose has almost doubled. CT is now by far the largest contributor to patient dose in diagnostic radiology. Efforts need to be made to reduce patient dose by such methods as reduction in unnecessary exams, substitution of nonionizing techniques where possible, and optimization of dose.

British Columbia↗