The National Patient Dose Database (NPDD) is maintained by the Radiation Protection Division of the Health Protection Agency. The latest review of the database analysed the data collected from 316 hospitals over a 5-year period to the end of 2005. The information supplied amounted to a total of 23 000 entrance surface dose measurements and 57 000 dose-area product measurements for single radiographs, and 208 000 dose-area product measurements along with 187 000 fluoroscopy times for diagnostic examinations or interventional procedures. In addition, patient dose data for dental X-ray examinations were included for the first time in the series of 5-yearly reviews. This article presents a summary of a key output from the NPDD - national reference doses. These are based on the third quartile values of the dose distributions for 30 types of diagnostic X-ray examination and 8 types of interventional procedure on adults, and for 4 types of X-ray examination on children. The reference doses are approximately 16% lower than the corresponding values in the previous (2000) review, and are typically less than half the values of the original UK national reference doses that were derived from a survey in the mid-1980s. This commentary suggests that two of the national reference doses from the 2000 review be retained as diagnostic reference levels because the older sample size was larger than for the 2005 review. No clear evidence could be found for the use of digital imaging equipment having a significant effect on dose.

Monte Carlo simulations of CT examinations have been performed to estimate effective doses, normalized to axial air kerma, for six mathematical phantoms representing ages from newborn to adult, and for three CT scanner models covering a range of designs. Organ doses were calculated for CT exposures of contiguous, 1 cm wide, transverse slices in each phantom and summed to give normalized effective doses for scans of four regions of the trunk and head. In all cases an inverse trend is observed between normalized effective dose and phantom age, with the dose to the newborn from head and neck scans being 2.2-2.5 times higher than that to the adult, depending on scanner model. Corresponding increases for scans of the trunk region are more variable between scanners and range from a factor of 1.3 to 2.4. If typical clinical exposure conditions for adults are also utilized for children, then, for example, the effective dose to the newborn from a chest scan could be above 15 mSv. It is concluded that CT has the potential to deliver significantly greater radiation doses to children than to adults and in view of their greater susceptibility to radiation effects, special efforts should be made in clinical practice to reduce doses to children by the use of size-specific scan protocols.

No abstract

The magnitude of the risks from low doses of radiation is one of the central questions in radiological protection. It is particularly relevant when discussing the justification and optimization of diagnostic medical exposures. Medical X-rays can undoubtedly confer substantial benefits in the healthcare of patients, but not without exposing them to effective doses ranging from a few microsieverts to a few tens of millisieverts. Do we have any evidence that these levels of exposure result in significant health risks to patients? The current consensus held by national and international radiological protection organizations is that, for these comparatively low doses, the most appropriate risk model is one in which the risk of radiation-induced cancer and hereditary disease is assumed to increase linearly with increasing radiation dose, with no threshold (the so-called linear no threshold (LNT) model). However, the LNT hypothesis has been challenged both by those who believe that low doses of radiation are more damaging than the hypothesis predicts and by those who believe that they are less harmful, and possibly even beneficial (often referred to as hormesis). This article reviews the evidence for and against both the LNT hypothesis and hormesis, and explains why the general scientific consensus is currently in favour of the LNT model as the most appropriate dose-response relationship for radiation protection purposes at low doses. Finally, the impact of the LNT model on the assessment of the risks from medical X-rays and how this affects the justification and optimization of such exposures is discussed.

No abstract