Revising and exploring the variations in methodologies for establishing the diagnostic reference levels for paediatric PET/CT imaging.
Journal
Nuclear medicine communications
ISSN: 1473-5628
Titre abrégé: Nucl Med Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8201017
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2023
01 Nov 2023
Historique:
medline:
13
10
2023
pubmed:
24
8
2023
entrez:
24
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
PET-computed tomography (PET/CT) is a hybrid imaging technique that combines anatomical and functional information; to investigate primary cancers, stage tumours, and track treatment response in paediatric oncology patients. However, there is debate in the literature about whether PET/CT could increase the risk of cancer in children, as the machine is utilizing two types of radiation, and paediatric patients have faster cell division and longer life expectancy. Therefore, it is essential to minimize radiation exposure by justifying and optimizing PET/CT examinations and ensure an acceptable image quality. Establishing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) is a crucial quantitative indicator and effective tool to optimize paediatric imaging procedures. This review aimed to distinguish and acknowledge variations among published DRLs for paediatric patients in PET/CT procedures. A search of relevant articles was conducted using databases, that is, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Medline, using the keywords: PET-computed tomography, computed tomography, PET, radiopharmaceutical, DRL, and their synonyms. Only English and full-text articles were included, with no limitations on the publication year. After the screening, four articles were selected, and the review reveals different DRL approaches for paediatric patients undergoing PET/CT, with primary variations observed in patient selection criteria, reporting of radiation dose values, and PET/CT equipment. The study suggests that future DRL methods for paediatric patients should prioritize data collection in accordance with international guidelines to better understand PET/CT dose discrepancies while also striving to optimize radiation doses without compromising the quality of PET/CT images.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37615527
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001748
pii: 00006231-990000000-00192
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
937-943Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Goske MJ, Strauss KJ, Coombs LP, Mandel KE, Towbin AJ, Larson DB, et al. Diagnostic reference ranges for pediatric abdominal CT. Radiology 2013; 268:208–218.
Bertolini V, Palmieri A, Bassi MC, Bertolini M, Trojani V, Piccagli V, et al. CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review. EJNMMI Phys 2020; 7:17.
Uslu L, Donig J, Link M, Rosenberg J, Quon A, Daldrup-Link HE. Value of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for evaluation of pediatric malignancies. J Nucl Med 2015; 56:274–286.
Hanafi M, Ff AS, Ramli S, Mohamed F, Musarudin M. The need of a system phantom for quantitative hybrid nuclear imaging of PET/CT: a systematic review. Med J Malaysia 2021; 76:551–561.
Thanuja M, Fazarina M, Ding C. F-18 FDG PET-CT in a case of unsuspected bilateral adrenal histoplasmosis. IIUM Med J Malaysia. 2021; 20:189–192.
Mattsson S, Andersson M, Soderberg M. Technological advances in hybrid imaging and impact on dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2015; 165:410–415.
Vañó E, Miller D, Martin C, Rehani M, Kang K, Rosenstein M, et al. ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP 2017; 46:1–144.
Vitola JV, Dondi M, Prado P, Shaw L, Paez D. Worldwide availability and utilization of PET/CT from IAEA survey. Ann Nucl Cardiol 2019; 5:44–46.
Brady SL, Shulkin BL. Dose optimization: a review of CT imaging for PET attenuation correction. Clin Transl Imaging 2017; 5:359–371.
Kertesz H, Beyer T, London K, Saleh H, Chung D, Rausch I, et al. Reducing radiation exposure to paediatric patients undergoing [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 2021; 23:775–786.
Parisi MT, Bermo MS, Alessio AM, Sharp SE, Gelfand MJ, Shulkin BL. Optimization of pediatric PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med 2017; 47:258–274.
Mokri S, Saripan M, Nordin A, Marhaban M, Abd Rahni A. Thoracic hybrid PET/CT registration using improved hybrid feature intensity multimodal demon. Radiat Phys Chem 2020; 167:108280.
Soleymani E, Soleymani A, Ahmadi S, Nordin MJ. Comparative assessment of different energy mapping methods in CT-based attenuation correction in PET/CT systems using whole body XCAT phantom. Procedia Technol 2013; 11:962–973.
Huang B, Law MW-M, Khong P-LJR. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology 2009; 251:166–174.
Alessio AM, Kinahan PE, Manchanda V, Ghioni V, Aldape L, Parisi MTJ. Weight-based, low-dose pediatric whole-body PET/CT protocols. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1570–1578.
Harun HH, Abdul Karim MK, Abbas Z, Abdul Rahman MA, Sabarudin A, Ng KH. Association of radiation doses and cancer risks from ct pulmonary angiography examinations in relation to body diameter. Diagnostics 2020; 10:681.
Abalo KD, Rage E, Leuraud K, Richardson DB, Le Pointe HD, Laurier D, et al. Early life ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risks: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Radiol 2021; 51:45–56.
Siegel JA, Sacks B, Pennington CW, Welsh JS. Dose optimization to minimize radiation risk for children undergoing CT and nuclear medicine imaging is misguided and detrimental. J Nucl Med 2017; 58:865–868.
Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al.; European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42:328–354.
Harun HH, Abdul Karim MK, Abd Rahman MA, Abdul Razak HR, Che Isa IN, Harun F. Establishment of CTPA local diagnostic reference levels with noise magnitude as a quality indicator in a tertiary care hospital. Diagnostics 2020; 10:680.
Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL. US diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 2017; 284:120–133.
Celier D, Roch P, Etard C, Ducou Le Pointe H, Brisse HJ. Multicentre survey on patient dose in paediatric imaging and proposal for updated diagnostic reference levels for France. Part 1: computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2020; 30:1156–1165.
Kharita MH, AlNaemi H, Kini V, Alkhazzam S, Rehani MM. Development of image quality related reference doses called acceptable quality doses (AQD) in paediatric CT exams in Qatar. Eur Radiol 2021; 31:3098–3105.
European Commission. Radiation protection No 185: European Guidelines on diagnostic reference levels for paediatric imaging. Publications Office of the European Union, 2018. pp. 1–122.
Granata C, Sorantin E, Seuri R, Owens CM. European Society of Paediatric radiology computed tomography and dose task force: European guidelines on diagnostic reference levels for paediatric imaging. Pediatr Radiol 2019; 49:702–705.
Alkhybari EM, McEntee MF, Brennan PC, Willowson KP, Hogg P, Kench PL. Determining and updating PET/CT and SPECT/CT diagnostic reference levels: a systematic review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2018; 182:532–545.
Vassileva J, Rehani M. Diagnostic reference levels. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204:W1–W3.
Alkhybari EM, McEntee MF, Willowson KP, Brennan PC, Kitsos T, Kench PLJT. An Australian local diagnostic reference level for paediatric whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT. Br J Radiol 2019; 92:20180879.
Botros GM, Towson JE, Smart RC. Updated paediatric diagnostic reference activities for nuclear medicine procedures in Australia and New Zealand derived from the 2009 survey. ANZ Nucl Med 2010; 41:12–18.
Roch P, Aubert B. French diagnostic reference levels in diagnostic radiology, computed tomography and nuclear medicine: 2004–2008 review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2013; 154:52–75.
Shahzad A, Bashir S, Anwar A. Establishment of age-specific reference levels and achievable doses for children and adults undergoing nuclear medicine exams. Radioprotection 2019; 54:187–194.
Evans N, Lasen M, Tsey K. Appendix A: effective public health practice project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. A systematic review of rural development research: characteristics, design quality and engagement with sustainability. SpringerBriefs Public Health 2015:45–63.
Jackson D, Atkin K, Bettenay F, Clark J, Ditchfield MR, Grimm JE, et al. Paediatric CT dose: a multicentre audit of subspecialty practice in Australia and New Zealand. Eur Radiol 2015; 25:3109–3122.
Saeed MK, Asiri AAM. Determination of radiation dose during computed tomography examinations in southern Saudi Arabian hospitals using size-specific dose estimates. Maejo Int J Sci Technol 2021; 15:147–158.
Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Towbin AJ, Sengupta D, Callahan MJ, Darge K, et al. Pediatric chest CT diagnostic reference ranges: development and application. Radiology 2017; 284:219–227.
Masselli G, De Angelis C, Sollaku S, Casciani E, Gualdi GJ. Imaging M. PET/CT in pediatric oncology. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020; 10:83.
Jadvar H, Connolly LP, Fahey FH, Shulkin BL. PET and PET/CT in pediatric oncology. Semin Nucl Med 2007; 37:316–331.
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012; 380:499–505.
Gelfand MJ, Parisi MT, Treves ST; Pediatric Nuclear Medicine Dose Reduction Workgroup. Pediatric radiopharmaceutical administered doses: 2010 North American Consensus Guidelines. J Nucl Med 2011; 52:318–322.
Lassmann M, Biassoni L, Monsieurs M, Franzius CJE. Imaging m: the new EANM paediatric dosage card: additional notes with respect to F-18. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35:1666–1668.
Ria F, Davis JT, Solomon JB, Wilson JM, Smith TB, Frush DP, et al. expanding the concept of Diagnostic Reference Levels to Noise and Dose Reference Levels in CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213:889–894.
Vano E, Frija G, Loose R, Paulo G, Efstathopoulos E, Granata C, et al.; European Society of Radiology (ESR). Dosimetric quantities and effective dose in medical imaging: a summary for medical doctors. Insights Imaging 2021; 12:99.
Tsapaki V, Damilakis J, Paulo G, Schegerer AA, Repussard J, Jaschke W, et al. CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications: results of a large-scale European survey. Eur Radiol 2021; 31:4459–4469.
Brady SL, Shulkin BL. Ultralow dose computed tomography attenuation correction for pediatric PET CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Med Phys 2015; 42:558–566.
Sonoda LI, Sanghera B, Wong WL. Investigation of dose minimisation protocol for 18F-FDG PET-CT in the management of lymphoma postchemotherapy followup. ScientificWorldJournal 2012; 2012:208135.
Goodwin D, Pope C, Mort M, Smith A. Ethics and ethnography: an experiential account. Qual Health Res 2003; 13:567–577.
Kumar S, Pandey AK, Sharma P, Malhotra A, Kumar R. Optimization of the CT acquisition protocol to reduce patient dose without compromising the diagnostic quality for PET-CT: a phantom study. Nucl Med Commun 2012; 33:164–170.
Prieto E, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Rodriguez-Fraile M, Moran V, Garcia-Garcia B, Guillen F, et al. Significant dose reduction is feasible in FDG PET/CT protocols without compromising diagnostic quality. Phys Med 2018; 46:134–139.
Saade C, Ammous A, Abi-Ghanem AS, Giesel F, Asmar K. Body weight-based protocols during whole body FDG PET/CT significantly reduces radiation dose without compromising image quality:findings in a large cohort study. Acad Radiol 2019; 26:658–663.
Tonkopi E, Ross AA, MacDonald A. JOURNAL CLUB: CT dose optimization for whole-body PET/CT examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201:257–263.
Kwon HW, Kim JP, Lee HJ, Paeng JC, Lee JS, Cheon GJ, et al. Radiation dose from whole-body F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography: nationwide survey in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31(Suppl 1):S69–S74.