Statement of the Italian Association of Medical Physics (AIFM) task group on radiation dose monitoring systems

D’Ercole, Loredana; Rossetti, V.; Torresin, A.; Pierotti, Luisa; Belli, Giacomo; Bregant, P.; Isoardi, Paola; Mari, A.; Nitrosi, Andrea; Nocetti, L; Paruccini, Nicoletta; Quattrocchi, M.; Radice, Anna; Rampado, Osvaldo; Scrittori, N.; Sottocornola, Chiara; Strocchi, Sabina; Sutto, M.; Zatelli, G.; Acchiappati, Domenico; Aoja, Rosa Antonella; Brambilla, Marco; Branchini, M.; Cannatà, Vittorio; Costi, T.; Cutaia, C.; D.’Ercole, Loredana; Vecchio, Antonella Del; Canne, Stefania Delle; Pasquale, Maria Di; Elisabetta, Silvia; Fabbri, C; Faico, Maria Daniela; Fantinato, Daniele; Ghetti, Caterina; Giannelli, Marco; Giordano, Carlo; Grisotto, S.; Guidi, G.; Lisciandro, Francesco; Manco, Luigi; Marini, Pier Giorgio; Moresco, Paola; Oberhofer, Nadia; Origgi, Daniela; Palleri, F.; Pasquali, C.; Pasquino, Massimo; Peruzzo, Andrea; Petrillo, Giuseppe; Pini, S.; Rembado, D.; Ria, Francesco; Riccardi, L.; Rosasco, Raffaella; Serelli, Giulio; Soavi, Raffaella; Stasi, M.; Taddeucci, A.; Tonini, Eugenia; Trianni, Annalisa; Turano, Piera; Venturi, Giovanna; Zefiro, Daniele; Zito, Felicia

doi:10.1186/s13244-022-01155-1

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Basic tests on data transfer and accuracy can be performed by a radiographer or IT member and reviewed by an MPE. It remains the responsibility of the MPE to check any dosimetry data [17]. More complicated tests should be performed by an MPE or a well-trained radiographer under the supervision of an MPE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the crucial activity of patient dosimetry is typically attributed to medical physics experts (MPE's) [14,15,17], it is logical to think that any dosimetric calculations proposed by a DMS should be verified or at least supervised by the MPE. The aim of this article is to present how we have implemented a QA program for DMS's, and to propose a list of QA tests and reports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality assurance of dose management systems

Samara

Fitousi²,

Bosmans

2022

Physica Medica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assurance of dose management systems

Samara

Fitousi²,

Bosmans

2022

Physica Medica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A complete guidance for the DRL practical application is presented in the ICRP 135 [5]. This publication emphasizes that the DRLs must adopt measurable quantities in order to assess and compare doses for particular types of examinations among different facilities and can be used as a tool to optimize medical exposures [6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic reference level quantities for adult chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations: correlation with organ doses

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate correlations between DRL quantities (DRLq) stratified into patient size groups for non-contrast chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations in adult patients and the corresponding organ doses. Methods This study presents correlations between DRLq (CTDIvol, DLP and SSDE) stratified into patient size ranges and corresponding organ doses shared in four groups: inside, peripheral, distributed and outside. The demographic, technical and dosimetric parameters were used to identify the influence of these quantities in organ doses. A robust statistical method was implemented in order to establish these correlations and its statistical significance. Results Median values of the grouped organ doses are presented according to the effective diameter ranges. Organ doses in the regions inside the imaged area are higher than the organ doses in peripheral, distributed and outside regions, excepted to the peripheral doses associated with chest examinations. Different levels of statistical significance between organ doses and the DRLq were presented. Conclusions Correlations between DRLq and target-organ doses associated with clinical practice can support guidance’s to the establishment of optimization criteria. SSDE demonstrated to be significant in the evaluation of organ doses is also highlighted. The proposed model allows the design of optimization actions with specific risk-reduction results.

show abstract

“…In particular, new requirements have been brought forth regarding radiation burden in medical imaging [2][3][4]. Radiation dose monitoring systems (RDMSs), especially for computed tomography (CT), have been implemented in medical imaging departments aiming towards regulatory compliance while continuing to provide valuable information concerning the optimization and justification of radiological procedures [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making CT Dose Monitoring Meaningful: Augmenting Dose with Imaging Quality

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the concerns about radiation dose associated with medical imaging, radiation dose monitoring systems (RDMSs) are now utilized by many radiology providers to collect, process, analyze, and manage radiation dose-related information. Currently, most commercially available RDMSs focus only on radiation dose information and do not track any metrics related to image quality. However, to enable comprehensive patient-based imaging optimization, it is equally important to monitor image quality as well. This article describes how RDMS design can be extended beyond radiation dose to simultaneously monitor image quality. A newly designed interface was evaluated by different groups of radiology professionals (radiologists, technologists, and physicists) on a Likert scale. The results show that the new design is effective in assessing both image quality and safety in clinical practices, with an overall average score of 7.8 out of 10.0 and scores ranging from 5.5 to 10.0. Radiologists rated the interface highest at 8.4 out of 10.0, followed by technologists at 7.6 out of 10.0, and medical physicists at 7.5 out of 10.0. This work demonstrates how the assessment of the radiation dose can be performed in conjunction with the image quality using customizable user interfaces based on the clinical needs associated with different radiology professions.

show abstract

Statement of the Italian Association of Medical Physics (AIFM) task group on radiation dose monitoring systems

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

Quality assurance of dose management systems

Quality assurance of dose management systems

Diagnostic reference level quantities for adult chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations: correlation with organ doses

Making CT Dose Monitoring Meaningful: Augmenting Dose with Imaging Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About