4.5 Article

Radiation-Related Cancer Risks in a Clinical Patient Population Undergoing Cardiac CT

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 196, 期 2, 页码 W159-W165

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4981

关键词

coronary CTA; dose-length product; effective dose; radiation cancer risk; radiation dose

资金

  1. Bayer-Schering
  2. Bracco
  3. General Electric
  4. Medrad
  5. Siemens Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to estimate cancer induction risk and generate risk conversion factors in cardiac CT angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Under an institutional review board waiver and in compliance with HIPAA, we collected characteristics for a consecutive cohort of 100 patients (60 men and 40 women; mean age, 59 +/- 11 years) who had previously undergone ECG-gated cardiac CT angiography on a 64-slice CT scanner. The volume CT Dose Index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) were recorded and used with the ImPACT CT Patient Dosimetry Calculator to compute organ and effective doses in a standard 70 kg phantom. Patient-specific organ and effective doses were obtained by applying a weight-based correction factor. Radiation doses to radiosensitive organs were converted to risks using age-and sex-specific data published in BEIR VII. RESULTS. Median values were 62 mGy for CTDIvol, 1,084 mGy-cm for DLP, and 17 cm for scan length. Effective doses ranged from 20 mSv (10th percentile) to 31 mSv (90th percentile). Median cancer induction risks in sensitive organs for men and women were 0.065% and 0.17%, respectively. For men and women, the range of risks was about a factor of 2. In men and women, about three quarters of the cancer risk was from lung cancer. Inclusion of the remaining less sensitive organs exposed during cardiac CT angiography examinations would likely increase the cancer induction risk by similar to 20%. CONCLUSION. The average cancer induction risk in sensitive organs from cardiac CT angiography for our patient cohort was 0.13%, with a female to male cancer induction risk ratio of 2.6.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据