Review of Recent CT Accidents: Dosimetry, Risk Analysis, and Lessons Learned
description
Transcript of Review of Recent CT Accidents: Dosimetry, Risk Analysis, and Lessons Learned
Review of Recent CT Accidents:Dosimetry, Risk Analysis, and Lessons Learned
Terry Yoshizumi, PhD*, David Enterline, MD Greta Toncheva, MS
Duke University Medical CenterDurham, NC
1
NC HPS SPRING MEETINGMARCH 4-5, 2010
RALEIGH, NC
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Robert Reiman, MD • Don Frush, MD• Ehsan Samei, PhD• James Colsher, PhD
2
TOPICS
1. Review of recent CT accidents2. What is CT perfusion (CTP)?3. Why is the dose so large?4. How do we measure organ doses?5. Results of Cedars-Sinai’s protocols6. Risks identified7. Scrutiny began at federal level8. Lessons learned9. Concluding remarks
3
Review of Recent CT Accidents
4
Eur Radiol (2005)15:41-46Hair loss: 3 casesCTP + angiography study
2005 2008 2009
2 1/2 yr old151 scans in period of 65 minutes(CBS13.com)
FDA Warning 10-8-09Cedars-Sinai, CTP206 pts over 18-mo.3-4 Gy (normal 0.5 Gy)80 hair loss56 direct exposure to lens of the eye
+ 50 identifiedfrom other states
(FDA Report)
Brain CT Perfusion ImagingClinical Applications
• Stroke and Ischemia• Diamox Challenge• Vasospasm• Tumor evaluation
– CTP and CT permeability
Tracer Kinetic Theory
Area under concentration curve
Flow =Volume
Mean transit time-0.02
0.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
MTT
-0.02
0.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
AreaVolume =
Analysis of time-concentration curves
Perfusion Imaging
• CT: Conc = k (density)
-0.02
0.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
CBVCBV
CBFCBF
MTTMTTTime Concentration Curve
Choosing Arterial Input Funct (AIF) & Venous Output F (VOF)
VOF
AIF
Compensated ischemia of LICA
MTT CBF CBV
Prolonged MTT (red) Low CBF (blue)
Increased CBV (green) due to autoregulation
Compensated ischemia of LICA
MTT CBF CBVNormal: 3-5 sec > 40 mL/min/100 g brain ~3
Borderline CBF With Low CBV Predicts Infarction (No
Intervention)
CBV - 5 hours
T2WI - 24 hours (MRI)
infarct
CT Perfusion- Absolute and Relative CBF Analysis
• Absolute CBF of 10-20 ml/100g/min represents ischemic tissue but viability depends on duration of ischemia
• When ischemia is associated with an area of core infarct, this represents the penumbra
• Decreased CBV with compromised CBF implies infarction
• CINE mode:• 80 kVp, 200 mA, 1 sec• Repeat 45 sec• Table fixed
13
CT Perfusion
WHEN THE DOSE BECOMES AN ISSUE IN CTP
When human errors introduced– scan parameters altered, i.e., the energy changed from 80 kVp to 120 kVp, or tube current (mA) modulation used without understanding consequences
Why:Display constantly updated images by continuous rotation of the tube at the same location; potential for high dose at the level of scan
14
How do we measure organ doses?
A. Manual Look-up tables (Outdated)B. Organ dose from CTDI (No value, but CTDI is
useful for monitoring dose)C. Monte Carlo based dose calculator (complex,
time consuming)D. Effective Dose from DLP (No value)E. Anthropomorphic phantom with TLDs (Labor
intensive)F. Anthropomorphic phantom with
MOSFET(metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor) detectors (Best value)
15
Materials and Methods• Patient Dose Verification System AutoSense, Model TN-RD-60
•Radiation detectors: 20 Metal Oxide Field Effect Semiconductor Transistors (MOSFET), Model TN-1002RD, High sensitivityReader, Model TN-RD-15Bias supply, Model TN-RD -22AutoSense PC Software, TN-RD-45
•MOSFET dosimeter:MOSFET dosimeter:Silicon chip 1mmSilicon chip 1mm22
Active area 0.2mm x 0.2mmActive area 0.2mm x 0.2mm
16
MOSFET AUTO-SENSE SYSTEM
MOSFET
Adult Male PhantomTissue Equivalent Anthropomorphic Phantom
Model 701-D StevenSN : 701-28539 slabsHeight -173 cm, Weight - 73 kgThorax Dimensions: 23 x 32 cmHead: AP 21cm, Lateral 17.1cmNeck at the thyroid: AP 13 cm, Lateral 14.6 cm
CIRSwww.cirsinc.com
A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE ED AND WEIGHTING FACTORS
18
CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT OR EFFECTIVE DOSE
1-12-10 19
ICRP Report 26 (1977)Dose EquivalentQuality FactorWeighting FactorEffective Dose Equivalent
ICRP Report 60 (1990)Equivalent Dose Radiation Weighting FactorTissue Weighting FactorEffective Dose
•ICRP 103 (2007)•Equivalent Dose•Radiation Weighting Factor•Tissue Weighting Factor•Effective Dose
WT : ICRP 26 (1976), ICRP 60 (1990), ICRP 103 (2007)
ORGANORGAN ICRP26 ICRP26
(1977)(1977)
ICRP60ICRP60
(1990)(1990)
ICRP 103ICRP 103
(2007)(2007)
GonadsGonads 0.250.25 0.200.20 0.050.05
Bone marrowBone marrow 0.120.12 0.120.12 0.120.12
LungLung 0.120.12 0.120.12 0.120.12
StomachStomach 0.120.12 0.120.12
ColonColon 0.120.12 0.120.12
BreastBreast 0.150.15 0.050.05 0.120.12
BladderBladder 0.050.05 0.050.05
LiverLiver 0.050.05 0.050.05
EsophagusEsophagus 0.050.05 0.050.05
ThyroidThyroid 0.030.03 0.050.05 0.050.05
SkinSkin 0.010.01 0.010.01 0.010.01
Bone surfaceBone surface 0.030.03 0.010.01 0.010.01
KidneysKidneys 0.010.01
BrainBrain 0.010.01
Salivary glandsSalivary glands 0.010.01
Remainder tissuesRemainder tissues 0.300.30 0.050.05 0.100.10
1-12-10 20
ICRP 103 Weighting Factors
21
Organ ICRP 103 Remainder ICRP 103
Gonads 0.08 Adrenals 0.0086
Bone marrow (red) 0.12Extra-thoracic tissue 0.0086
Lung 0.12 Gall bladder 0.0086
Breast 0.12 Heart wall 0.0086
Thyroid 0.04 Kidneys 0.0086
Bone surface 0.01 Lymph nodes 0.0086
Colon 0.12 Muscle 0.0086
Stomach 0.12 Oral mucosa 0.0086
Bladder 0.04 Pancreas 0.0086
Liver 0.04 Prostate 0.0086
Esophagus 0.04 Small intestine 0.0086
Skin 0.01 Spleen 0.0086
Salivary glands 0.01 Thymus 0.0086
Brain 0.01 Uterus / cervix 0.0086
Remainder 0.12 Total 1 Total 0.12
Notes on Effective Dose Calculations
22
• Skin Dose: taken the highest of the anterior and posterior, the posterior skin dose is reduced due to attenuation by the table• Brain Dose: the dose is averaged from the dose of all brain locations• Bone marrow: the dose is a sum of the measured bone marrow dose at different locations multiplied by the % distribution • Lens of the eye: average of the two • Bone surface: the measured dose is adjusted with the dry bone f-factor (different for soft tissue and bone), f-factor is the conversion from R to cGy, at different tissues and energies used during the MOSFET calibrations • All protocols were measured three times and the averaged value was used• Misc.: in occasions where out of three measurements two are “0”, only the one number was used, or if there was one “0” and two numbers, the average of the only two was used • The new ICRP 103 was used with the new weight factors (listed in the next slide)
Red marrow
% Distributio
nSKull
(cranium + facial) 8.32
Scapulae 28.5Clavicles 0.79
Ribs 19Spine (upper
portion) 2.66Spine (middle
portion) 17
ADULT CTP
23
Scan # Protocol Images Scan typeTable speed
(mm/rot) kV mA
Total Exposure time (sec)
CTDIvol (mGy) DLP (mGy*cm)
Detector coverage
1
Adult Perfusion 1-360
CINE Full Axial 5.0 8i 1sec 80 200 45 531.43 2125.71 40 mm
2
Adult Perfusion 1-360 CINE Full 5.0 8i 1sec 120 200 45 1714.29 6857.13 40 mm
3
Adult PerfusionAuto mA 1-360 CINE Full 5.0 8i 1sec 120
min 100 max 520
NI=2.4 45 4457.14 17828.55
FDA 0.5 Gy
24
TUBE CURRENT MODULATION
Basic Concept:
Adjust the tube current to accommodate the patient contour and composition
25
TUBE CURRENT MODULATION
mA2
mA1mA1
mA2
modulation around the z-axis modulation around the cross-section
mA2mA1
modulation – axial and helical
26
How smart mA works• Projection data from a scout scan measures the
patient and determines how to modulate the mA for improve dose efficiency and consistent IQ
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
100% 100% 55%55%
40%40%
mA
sm
As
Fixed mAFixed mA Z Modulation - Auto mA Z Modulation - Auto mA
XYZ ModulationXYZ Modulation
Jim Colsher, GE Healthcare
CHEST ABDOMEN PELVIS
27
sd 25.4
sd 23.7 sd 22.6
An AutomA Example (Noise Index =24)
GE Healthcare
Results: Effective Dose
28
ED per scan (mSv)
Head 0.9 - 4
Chest 4 – 18
Abdomen-Pelvis
3 - 25
Angiography: head
1 – 10
Angiography: heart
5 - 32
ED (Adult), excerpt from NCRP 160, 2009
Results: Organ doses
29
Results: Lens of the Eye
30
Results: Skin Dose
31
Brain Dose
32
Risks identified from CTP
33
Threshold dose (Gy) Clinical CT dose (Gy)FDA: 0.5 Gy
Temporary Epilation 3 Gy (FDA) Quite possible
Main Erythema 6 Gy (FDA) Unlikely, but possible
Moist desquamation, dermal necrosis, secondary ulceration
15-20 Gy (FDA) Unlikely, but possible
Cataracts •2-5 Gy (acute or a few fractions)•0.6-0.8 Gy (chronic exposure to diag. x-rays over yrs, or involve radiations other than photons (Reiman)
Possible for both acute and lower threshold
FDA Report (10-7-09)http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/Detail.CFM?
MDRFOI__ID=1495886
SUMMARY:• No malfunction on the scanner• Protocol altered by the site user
34
(GE Version)
Recommendations from FDA
• Check for excess radiation from CT Perfusion• Review radiation dosing protocols for all CT perfusion
studies• Implement quality control procedures• Check the CT scanner display panel before performing a
study to make sure the amount of radiation to be delivered is at the appropriate level for the individual patient.
• For multiple scans on a patient during one imaging session, practitioners should adjust the dose of radiation
35
Lessons learned• Need for quality assurance of protocol
development/modification including dosimetry oversight
• Need for team approach in dealing with patient safety
• Need for radiation safety education for all personnel involved
• Need for institutional oversight by the Radiation Safety Committee
36
Concluding remarks
Key questions to ask regarding Cedars-Sinai incident?
1.Was it machine failure?
2.Was it human failure? Wrong scan protocols implemented – no one
challenged changing 80 kVp to 120 kVp, or use of Auto mA mode with low noise factor
Failure by the technologists, radiologists and physicist
3.What signs were there? High CTDI values missed. You must look for it!
4.What was the protocol review process?37
Concluding Remarks
38
CONGRESSIONAL HEARING OCCURRED (F-2-26-2010). This may be the beginning of a new period for radiation protection.
Concluding remarksWHAT WAS LOST IN ALL THESE HYPE?• Cold Facts on Stroke
– The third leading cause of death in the US– The leading cause of adult disability– Every year about 750,000 Americans experience stroke and about 160,000
(21%) die from it
• Fundamental issue: Over-radiation without oversight– CTP is a valid protocol that uses 0.5-0.8 Gy , but should be < 1Gy
Live/die vs. Hair Loss
39WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE?
40
THANK YOU.