Patients` cumulative doses during CT-examinations in Russian clinical practice
https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2025-18-2-131-140
Abstract
In modern clinical practice, multiple computed tomography examinations are increasingly common, which can lead to the accumulation of significant effective doses of patients. The aim of this study was to identify cases of high cumulative effective doses (more than 100 mSv) of adult patients undergoing computed tomography examinations in two departments of the Leningrad Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary. Materials and Methods. The study is based on the analysis of patient effective dose data obtained from computed tomography examination logbooks for the periods 2020–2021 (Department No. 1) and 2019–2021 (Department No. 2). Effective doses were calculated based on dose-length product values using appropriate conversion coefficients in accordance with methodological guidelines MU 2.6.1.3584-19. Results. The study results showed that in Department No. 1, 1 % of patients (18 individuals) received cumulative doses exceeding 100 mSv, with a maximum value of 239 mSv. In Department No. 2, the corresponding figure was 0.3 % (9 individuals), with a maximum dose of 147 mSv. The dose accumulated over both extended periods (up to a year) and short intervals (less than a month). A comparison of the obtained results with international data showed that cumulative effective doses more than 100 mSv are often observed in non-oncological patients, including patients under the age of 40. In the study sample, most patients were over 40 years old. Justification and optimization of computed tomography examinations are the main tools for managing high cumulative effective doses in patients. It is important to emphasize the need to assess not only effective but also absorbed organ doses during multiple computed tomography examinations, especially when planning radiation therapy. Conclusions. Systematic monitoring of high cumulative effective doses in patients is necessary in the Russian Federation, particularly among younger patients.
About the Author
P. S. Druzhinina
Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Polina S. Druzhinina – Junior Research Fellow, Laboratory of Radiation Hygiene of Medical Facilities
Mira Str., 8, Saint Petersburg, 197101
References
1. Chipiga L, Bernhardsson C. Patient doses in computed tomography examinations in two regions of the Russian Federation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2016;169(1-4): 240-244. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncv516.
2. Brambilla M, Vassileva J, Kuchcinska A, Rehani M. Multinational data on cumulative radiation exposure of patients from recurrent radiological procedures: call for action. European Radiology. 2020;30(5): 2493-2501. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06528-7.
3. Mattsson S. Need for individual cancer risk estimates in x-ray and nuclear medicine imaging. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2016;169(1-4): 11-16. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncw034.
4. Vassileva J, Holmberg O. Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed? The British Journal of Radiology. 2021;94(1126): 20210477. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210477.
5. Averbeck D, Salomaa S, Bouffler S, Ottolenghi A, Smyth V, Sabatier L. Progress in low dose health risk research. Mutation Research / Reviews in Mutation Research. 2018;776: 46-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2018.04.001.
6. Dauer L, Brooks A, Hoel D, Morgan W, Stram D, Tran P. Review and evaluation of updated research on the health effects associated with low-dose ionising radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2010;140(2): 103-136. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq141.
7. Hamada N, Azizova T, Little M. An update on effects of ionizing radiation exposure on the eye. The British Journal of Radiology. 2020;93(1115): 20190829. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190829.
8. Kitahara C, Linet M, Drozdovitch V, Alexander B, Preston D, Simon S, et al. Cancer and circulatory disease risks in US radiologic technologists associated with performing procedures involving radionuclides. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2015;72(11): 770-776. DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2015-102834.
9. Little M, Azizova T, Hamada N. Low- and moderate-dose noncancer effects of ionizing radiation in directly exposed individuals, especially circulatory and ocular diseases: a review of the epidemiology. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2021;97(6): 782-803. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2021.1876955.
10. Little M, Wakeford R, Bouffler S, Abalo K, Hauptmann M, Hamada N, et al. Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses. Environment International. 2022;159(Н.Д.): 106983. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106983.
11. McLean A, Adlen E, Cardis E, Elliott A, Goodhead D, HarmsRingdahl M, et al. A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning the health effects of low-level ionizing radiation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2017;284(1862): 20171070. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1070.
12. NCRP. Commentary No. 24 – Health Effects of Low Doses of Radiation: Perspectives on Integrating Radiation Biology and Epidemiology (2015).
13. Tang F, Loganovsky K. Low dose or low dose rate ionizing radiation-induced health effect in the human. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2018;192: 32-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2018.05.018.
14. Tapio S, Little M, Kaiser J, Impens N, Hamada N, Georgakilas A, et al. Ionizing radiation-induced circulatory and metabolic diseases. Environment International. 2021;146(Н.Д.): 106235. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106235.
15. ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: translation from English. Ed. by MF Kiselev, NK Shandala. Мoscow: “Alana”; 2009. 312 p. (In Russian).
16. Fabritius G, Brix G, Nekolla E, Klein S, Popp H, Meyer M, et al. Erratum: Cumulative radiation exposure from imaging procedures and associated lifetime cancer risk for patients with lymphoma. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1): 46644. DOI: 10.1038/srep46644.
17. Rehani M, Yang K, Melick E, Heil J, Šalát D, Sensakovic W. et al. Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude. European Radiology. 2020;30(4): 1828-1836. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06523-y.
18. National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (2018) Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear-nonthreshold model and radiation protection. NCRP Commentary No. 27. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP.
19. Rehani M, Melick E, Alvi R, Doda Khera R, Batool-Anwar S, Neilan T, et al. Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness. European Radiology. 2020;30(4): 1839-1846. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06551-8.
20. Chen J, Einstein A, Fazel R, Krumholz H, Wang Y, Ross J. et al. Cumulative Exposure to Ionizing Radiation From Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiac Imaging Procedures. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010;56(9): 702-711. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.014.
21. Marcu L, Chau M, Bezak E. How much is too much? Systematic review of cumulative doses from radiological imaging and the risk of cancer in children and young adults. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2021;160: 103292. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103292.
22. Griffey R, SodicksonA. Cumulative Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risk Estimates in Emergency Department Patients Undergoing Repeat or Multiple CT. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2009;192(4): 887-892. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.08.1351.
23. Bedetti G, Botto N, Andreassi M, Traino C, Vano E, Picano E. Cumulative patient effective dose in cardiology. The British Journal of Radiology. 2008;81(969): 699-705. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/29507259.
24. Broder J, Bowen J, Lohr J, Babcock A, Yoon J. Cumulative CT Exposures in Emergency Department Patients Evaluated for Suspected Renal Colic. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2007;33(2): 161-168. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2006.12.035.
25. Kim P, Gracias V, Maidment A, Shea M, Reilly P, Schwab C. Cumulative Radiation Dose Caused By Radiologic Studies in Critically Ill Trauma Patients. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care. 2004;57(3): 510-514. DOI: 10.1097/01.ta.0000141028.97753.67.
26. Bhandari V, Patel P, Gurjar O, Gupta K. Impact of repeat computerized tomography replans in the radiation therapy of head and neck cancers. Journal of Medical Physics. 2014;39(3): 164. DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.139005.
27. Kan M, Leung L, Wong W, Lam N. Radiation Dose From Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Image-Guided Radiation Therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2008;70(1): 272-279. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.062.
28. Özseven A, Dirican B. Evaluation of patient organ doses from kilovoltage cone-beam CT imaging in radiation therapy. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy. 2021;26(2): 251-258. DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2021.0038.
29. International commission on radiological protection. Draft report: Radiological Protection Aspects of Imaging in Radiotherapy. URL: https://www.icrp.org/docs/TG116%20RP%20Imaging%20in%20RT%20for%20Public%20Consultation_final.docx (Дата обращения: 08.04.2025 )
30. Derikvand A, Bagherzadeh S, MohammadSharifi A, Khoshgard K, AllahMoradi F. Estimation of cancer risks due to chest radiotherapy treatment planning computed tomography (CT) simulations. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 2023;62(2): 269-277. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-023-01025-4.
31. Zhang Y, Wu H, Chen Z, Knisely J, Nath R, Feng Z, et al. Concomitant Imaging Dose and Cancer Risk in Image Guided Thoracic Radiation Therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2015;93(3): 523-531. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.06.034.
32. Bagherzadeh S, Jabbari N, Khalkhali H. Estimation of lifetime attributable risks (LARs) of cancer associated with abdominopelvic radiotherapy treatment planning computed tomography (CT) simulations. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2018;94(5): 454-461. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2018.1450536.
33. Rehani M, Hauptmann M. Estimates of the number of patients with high cumulative doses through recurrent CT exams in 35 OECD countries. Physica Medica. 2020;76: 173-176. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.07.014.
34. Rehani M, Melick E, Alvi R, Doda Khera R, Batool-Anwar S, Neilan T, et al. Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness. European Radiology. 2020;30(4): 1839-1846. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06551-8.
35. Rehani M, Heil J, Baliyan V. Multicentric study of patients receiving 50 or 100 mSv in a single day through CT imaging— frequency determination and imaging protocols involved. European Radiology. 2021;31(9): 6612-6620. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07734-y.
Review
For citations:
Druzhinina P.S. Patients` cumulative doses during CT-examinations in Russian clinical practice. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2025;18(2):131-140. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2025-18-2-131-140
Views:
31
Email this article 