A questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists’ and clinical specialist radiographers’ knowledge of CT exposure parameters

ObjectiveTo review knowledge of computed tomography (CT) parameters and their influence on patient dose and image quality amongst a cohort of clinical specialist radiographers (CSRs) and examining radiologists.MethodsA questionnaire survey was devised and distributed to a cohort of 65 examining radiologists attending the American Board of Radiology exam in Kentucky in November 2011. The questionnaire was later distributed by post to a matching cohort of Irish CT CSRs. Each questionnaire contained 40 questions concerning CT parameters and their influence on both patient dose and image quality.ResultsA response rate of 22 % (radiologists) and 32 % (CSRs) was achieved. No difference in mean scores was detected between either group (27.8 ± 4 vs 28.1 ± 4, P = 0.87) although large ranges were noted (18–36). Considerable variations in understanding of CT parameters was identified, especially regarding operation of automatic exposure control and the influence of kilovoltage and tube current on patient dose and image quality. Radiologists were unaware of recommended diagnostic reference levels. Both cohorts were concerned regarding CT doses in their departments.ConclusionsCT parameters were well understood by both groups. However, a number of deficiencies were noted which may have a considerable impact on patient doses and limit the potential for optimisation in clinical practice.Key points• CT users must adapt parameters to optimise patient dose and image quality.• The influence of some parameters is not well understood.• A need for ongoing education in dose optimisation is identified.

[1]  Mikael Gunnarsson,et al.  Automatic exposure control in computed tomography – an evaluation of systems from different manufacturers , 2010, Acta radiologica.

[2]  Thomas Flohr,et al.  Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  Nicholas Keat.  CT scanner automatic exposure control systems , 2005 .

[4]  P. Gevenois,et al.  Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. , 2009, Medical physics.

[6]  D. Frush,et al.  Helical CT of the body: a survey of techniques used for pediatric patients. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances, Fourth Edition , 2022 .

[8]  J. Hinshaw,et al.  Ionizing radiation in abdominal CT: unindicated multiphase scans are an important source of medically unnecessary exposure. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[9]  Takeshi Nakaura,et al.  Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. , 2005, Radiology.

[10]  J. Valentin,et al.  Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[11]  Lee W Goldman,et al.  Principles of CT: Radiation Dose and Image Quality* , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[12]  Nations United.  sources and effects of ionizing radiation , 2000 .

[13]  P. Brennan,et al.  Efficient use of automatic exposure control systems in computed tomography requires correct patient positioning , 2009, Acta radiologica.

[14]  Michael J Pentecost,et al.  American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[15]  M. Kalra,et al.  Do metallic endoprostheses increase radiation dose associated with automatic tube-current modulation in abdominal-pelvic MDCT? A phantom and patient study. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Katsuhiro Ichikawa,et al.  Misoperation of CT automatic tube current modulation systems with inappropriate patient centering: phantom studies. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  L K Harding,et al.  International Commission on Radiation Protection. , 1990, Nuclear medicine communications.

[18]  Simon Wildermuth,et al.  Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose , 2008, European Radiology.

[19]  Andrew Hyatt,et al.  Computed tomography: physical principles, clinical applications, and quality control , 2009 .

[20]  Justus Roos,et al.  CT screening and follow-up of lung nodules: effects of tube current-time setting and nodule size and density on detectability and of tube current-time setting on apparent size. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  Patrik Rogalla,et al.  Does Ultra-Low-Dose CT With a Radiation Dose Equivalent to That of KUB Suffice to Detect Renal and Ureteral Calculi? , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[22]  K Freeman,et al.  CT scans through metal scanning technique versus hardware composition. , 1994, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[23]  C. McCollough,et al.  Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[24]  Mannudeep K Kalra,et al.  Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. , 2005, Radiology.

[25]  Multidetector Computed Tomography Chest Examinations With Low-Kilovoltage Protocols in Adults: Effect on Image Quality and Radiation Dose , 2009, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[26]  M. McEntee,et al.  Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[27]  J. Paul,et al.  Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. , 2004, Radiology.

[28]  D. Broga,et al.  Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States , 2009 .

[29]  Xitao Fan,et al.  Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-analysis , 2009 .

[30]  A. Smith,et al.  Research Methodology: A Step-by-step Guide for Beginners , 2012 .

[31]  Thomson Wh,et al.  International Commission on Radiation Protection. , 1990 .

[32]  Image quality of low-energy pulmonary CT angiography: comparison with standard CT. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[33]  D. Brenner,et al.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  M. Clarke,et al.  Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[35]  岩崎 民子.  SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION : United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes , 2002 .

[36]  W. Eckelman,et al.  NCRP report no. 93: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland (1987). US$15.00 , 1988 .

[37]  A. Padhani.  Recommendations for cross-sectional imaging in cancer management, Second edition: Colon, rectum and anal canal cancer , 2006 .

[38]  K. P. Kim,et al.  Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study , 2012, The Lancet.

[39]  Thomas Flohr,et al.  Metallic prosthesis: technique to avoid increase in CT radiation dose with automatic tube current modulation in a phantom and patients. , 2005, Radiology.

[40]  Rainer Raupach,et al.  Automated Attenuation-Based Tube Potential Selection for Thoracoabdominal Computed Tomography Angiography: Improved Dose Effectiveness , 2011, Investigative radiology.