Review of air kerma‐area product, effective dose and dose conversion coefficients for non‐cardiac interventional fluoroscopy procedures

Abstract

Purpose To provide current data on average air kerma‐area product (PKA) and effective dose (E) for noncardiac interventional fluoroscopy procedures and suggested values of dose coefficients (DCE) for conversion of PKA to estimates of effective dose. Methods A PubMed literature search covering the time period from 2006 to August 2019 was performed to obtain recent data on PKA, E and DCE for interventional fluoroscopy procedures. Results There is very wide variation in the reported values of PKA, E, and DCE in the literature. A number of factors are involved in this variability and the resultant uncertainty in average values of these dose quantities. Conclusions The values of PKA, average E and suggested DCE presented here can be of use for comparison of the radiation detriment from different procedures and may be useful for categorizing detriment within an order of magnitude or so. They do not represent actual or expected radiation dose or detriment from any specific procedure or for a specific patient and should be not be used as such.

Typical doses and typical values for fluoroscopic diagnostic and interventional procedures

“…This wide range has been previously reported for dose application in interventional radiology [12,20,22,27,28]. Mainly, procedure protocol, patient physique (height, weight), disease severity, operator skill and equipment contribute to variations in dose values [6,12,29]. Additionally, existing research identifies analysis-related issues such as inconsistencies in procedure names and grouping to cause this wide spread when comparing DRLs to previously published values [6,11,12,22,24,29,30].…”

“…Mainly, procedure protocol, patient physique (height, weight), disease severity, operator skill and equipment contribute to variations in dose values [6,12,29]. Additionally, existing research identifies analysis-related issues such as inconsistencies in procedure names and grouping to cause this wide spread when comparing DRLs to previously published values [6,11,12,22,24,29,30]. In the report of the EUCLID-project the authors promote a common lexicon to avoid these inconsistencies and simplify comparisons [12].…”

Erratum: “Review of kerma‐area product, effective dose and dose conversion coefficients for non‐cardiac interventional fluoroscopy procedures” [Med. Phys. 47, 975‐982 (2020)

“…The units for air kerma‐area product ( P KA ) and dose conversion coefficient (DC E ) in this article 1 were correct in the manuscript and published Accepted Article but were inadvertently changed during the copyediting process. The correct unit for P KA is Gy cm 2 , sometimes written as Gy·cm 2 .…”

Optimal conversion coefficient from easily measurable dose to effective dose with consideration to radiation quality for posterior–anterior chest radiography

“…Among these methods, that using an effective dose conversion coefficient does not require a human body model phantom or simulation software necessary to calculate the effective dose, and can be easily calculated from the dose index listed in the diagnostic reference levels. So far, studies of conversion coefficients have been conducted in the fields of general radiography [9][10][11], CT [12,13], and interventional radiology (IVR) [14,15]. Although conversion coefficients have been studied for a long time in general radiography, fewer studies have used the tissue weighting factors proposed in ICRP103 for general radiography, compared with those for other modalities.…”