---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CT) X-RAY EXAMS: Estimated Doses to Patients XaHP Document 112, September 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * CT doses below are merely "ballpark" values. Entrance doses during CT scans are almost never measured. Actual doses --- even from the same equipment for the same patient --- can vary many-fold according to the settings selected for kVp, mAs, pitch, filtration, slice-width, and some other variables. * Real doses in centi-Gray units (cGy) are distinctly different entities from "effective" doses in centi-Sievert units (cSv). Real doses quantify energy per gram of tissue delivered by an x-ray exam to the irradiated sections of the body, whereas "effective" doses are artificial values based on assumptions about risk ("detriment"). Please see reverse side. * The centi-Gray (cGy) and the rad are identical units. There are 10 milli-Gray (mGy) per centi-Gray (cGy) or rad, because milli means one-thousandth and centi means one-hundredth. The centi-Sievert (cSv) and rem are interchangeable units. * This table begins with the typical extra "effective" radiation dose from commercial flying in the USA, because medical patients are so often told that their x-ray dose is about the same as the extra radiation from one trip. For CT exams, the table shows that the claim would be very mistaken. The righthand column divides CT "effective" doses by the "effective" dose from a ten-hour airplane flight in the US (0.003 cSv). The lowest ratio is 50, for just one scan. The ratio for one CT "study" involving 2 or 3 scans would be 2 or 3 times higher than the ratios in the righthand column. Please see additional notes below the tabulation. TOPIC TYPE OF ESTIMATED DOSE SOURCE Eff.Dose: DOSE CT/flying Extra radiation "Effective" 0.0003 cSv per UNSCEAR 1993, during commercial dose/hr. hour. And p.38. airplane flights And 0.003 cSv per 10 within USA. per 10 hours. hours. CT scans, general. Tissue dose 1-3 cSv. Mettler 2000, per scan. p.352. CT head scan, Surface 3-7 cGy (rads). Nickoloff 2001, adult. dose. p.285. CT head scan, "Effective" 0.15 cSv. Mettler 2000, 50 to 1. adult. dose. p.352. CT chest, typical. Surface 2-5 cGy (rads). Nickoloff 2001, * dose. p.286. CT chest, typical. Internal Below 2 cGy Ravenel 2001, dose. (rads). p.283. CT chest, typical. "Effective" 0.54 cSv. Huda 2000, 180 to 1. dose. p.843. CT chest, Breast: Up to 5 cGy Gray 1998-a, unspecified. ** Mean (rads). p.63. glandular dose. CT multi-slice of Surface Up to 10-20 cGy. Nickoloff 2001, heart for calcium dose. p.286. score. CT chest Surface 2-4 cGy (rads). Nickoloff 2001, angiograph. dose. p.286. CT chest, cancer Surface 0.2 - 0.4 cGy Nickoloff 2001, screening. dose. (rad). p.286. Electron Beam CT X-ray beam Reduced dose to Nickoloff 2001, chest angiography travels breasts and p.286. or cardiac calcium from back front chest score. "EBCT." to front. wall. CT abdominal Surface 2-5 cGy (rads). Nickoloff 2001, "series." dose. p.285. CT abdominal, "Effective" 0.39 cSv. Ware 1999, p.64. 130 to 1. adult. dose. Young adult. "Effective" 0.44 cSv. Ware 1999, p.64. 147 to 1. dose. Child. "Effective" 0.61 cSv. Ware 1999, p.64. 203 to 1. dose. CT-fluoroscopy, Range of 20-60 cGy (rads) Nickoloff 2001, for imaging in typical per minute. p.285. biopsies, etc. dose-rates. * The "effective" doses above, for medical procedures, have very probably not been properly adjusted upward yet for the greater mutagenic power per cGy (rad) of 90-120 kVp x-rays, compared with 250 kVp x-rays and a-bomb gamma rays (details in Gofman 1999, pp.46-48). * The "effective" doses above do not yet incorporate the risk of x-ray-induced coronary artery disease (Gofman 1999). * A handy approximation is that, during helical CT scans, the real dose (cGy or rads) at the body's center is approximately half of the surface dose (Nickoloff 2001, p.285). Except for Electron Beam CT (EBCT), the CT procedures above irradiate the body by revolving the x-ray beams fully around the head or torso. * One CT "study" may involve 2 or 3 repeats ("phases") on the same day. Over 90% of abdominal/pelvic CT studies use 2 or more CT scans, and the dose from such studies is the sum of single per-scan doses above (Mettler 2000, p.355, p.357). ------------------------------------------------------------------ Page 2 of XaHP Document #112, September 2001: Estimated Doses to Patients from CT X-Ray Examinations. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Real Dose vs. "Effective" Dose A real dose (dose-unit = cGy or rad) reflects something objective: The energy deposited by x-rays per gram of irradiated body-tissue. By conrast, an "effective" dose is a calculation which estimates what dose, if given to the entire body, might produce approximately the same amount of risk as would the real dose actually received by the irradiated sections. "Effective" doses (dose-unit = cSv or rem) incorporate a crude adjustment for the different types of ionizing radiation, plus "tissue weighting factors" which attempt (despite woefully inadequate evidence) to assess the attributable probability of fatal cancer in different organs, the additional detriment from non-fatal cancer and hereditary disorders, and the different latency periods for cancers in various tissues. Footnote * Dose-Comparison. The typical chest CT exam must not be confused with the typical chest film. The back-to-front chest film delivers a surface entrance dose of about 0.02 cGy (rad), which is at least 100 times lower than the reported dose-range of 2-5 cGy (rads) for the typical chest CT exam. Footnote ** Dose-Comparison The breasts receive a mean glandular dose of x-rays "up to 5 cGy (rads)" from chest CT exams. By comparison, the mean glandular breast-dose from a complete 2-view mammographic screening exam is about 0.2 cGy (rad). Mammographic doses vary with the thickness of the compressed breasts. Thicker breasts require higher doses. Full-Body CT Screening Exam The table on page 1 contains no entry for the recently introduced full-body CT screening exam because dose-estimates vary widely. This type of exam is briefly discussed in Nickoloff 2001, p.287. References for Pages 1 and 2 * Gofman 1999. John W. Gofman, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease; Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population. 699 pages. ISBN 0-932682-97-9. CNR Books, San Francisco, CA 94142. November 1999. * Gray 1998-a. Joel E. Gray, "Lower Radiation Exposure Improves Patient Safety, "Diagnostic Imaging Vol.20, No.9: 61-64. September 1998. * Huda 2000. Walter Huda et al, "Effective Doses to Patients Undergoing Thoracic Computed Tomography Examinations," Medical Physics Vol.27, No.5: 838-844. May 2000. * Mettler 2000. Fred A. Mettler et al, "CT Scanning: Patterns of Use and Dose," Journal of Radiation Protection Vol.20: 353-359. * Nickoloff 2001. Edward L. Nickoloff + Philip O. Alderson, "Radiation Exposures to Patients from CT: Reality, Public Perception, and Policy," (Commentary), American J. Roentgenology Vol.177: 285-287. August 2001. * Ravenel 2001. James G. Ravenel et al, "Radiation Exposure and Image Quality in Chest CT Examinations," American J. Roentgenology Vol.177: 279-284. August 2001. * UNSCEAR 1993. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, with Scientific Annexes. 922 pages. ISBN 92-1-142200-0. United Nations 1993. * Ware 1999. Dan E. Ware et al, "Radiation Effective Doses to Patients Undergoing Abdominal CT Examinations," Radiology Vol.210, No.3: 645-650. March 1999. --------------------------------------------------- | | | XaHP: The X-rays and Health Project. | | An educational project of the | | Committee for Nuclear Responsibility. | |_________________________________________________| --------------------------------------------------------- | The plan: Lower x-ray doses per x-ray procedure. | | The result: Fewer cases of x-ray-induced cancer | | and coronary heart disease. | |_______________________________________________________| This document is available electronically at: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/CTexams.html (hyper text) http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/CTexams.txt (ascii text)