How Do Cancer-Specific Computed Tomography Protocols Compare With the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry? An Analysis of Computed Tomography Dose at 2 Cancer Centers

Abstract

Background Little guidance exists on how to stratify radiation dose according to diagnostic task. Changing dose for different cancer types is currently not informed by the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry dose survey. Methods A total of 9602 patient examinations were pulled from 2 National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers. Computed tomography dose (CTDIvol) was extracted, and patient water equivalent diameter was calculated. N-way analysis of variance was used to compare the dose levels between 2 protocols used at site 1, and three protocols used at site 2. Results Sites 1 and 2 both independently stratified their doses according to cancer indications in similar ways. For example, both sites used lower doses (P < 0.001) for follow-up of testicular cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma. Median dose at median patient size from lowest to highest dose level for site 1 were 17.9 (17.7–18.0) mGy (mean [95% confidence interval]) and 26.8 (26.2–27.4) mGy. For site 2, they were 12.1 (10.6–13.7) mGy, 25.5 (25.2–25.7) mGy, and 34.2 (33.8–34.5) mGy. Both sites had higher doses (P < 0.001) between their routine and high-image-quality protocols, with an increase of 48% between these doses for site 1 and 25% for site 2. High-image-quality protocols were largely applied for detection of low-contrast liver lesions or subtle pelvic pathology. Conclusions We demonstrated that 2 cancer centers independently choose to stratify their cancer doses in similar ways. Sites 1 and 2 dose data were higher than the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry dose survey data. We thus propose including a cancer-specific subset for the dose registry.