EFFECTIVE RADIATION DOSE AND LIFETIME ATTRIBUTABLE CANCER RISK FROM NON-CONTRAST CT OF THE URINARY TRACT
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Objective
Non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) of the urinary tract is currently regarded as the gold standard for detecting urolithiasis, demonstrating diagnostic sensitivity and specificity rates as high as 97% and 95%, respectively. Nonetheless, its widespread application has raised significant concerns regarding cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation. This study aims to measure radiation dose parameters and the associated lifetime attributable cancer risk (LAR) during non-contrast urinary tract CT.
Materials and Methods
The cross-sectional study included 95 patients who underwent urinary tract NCCT on a 64-slice, 128-detector GE Revolution Maxima scanner from January 2025 to July 2025. The body parameters measures were evaluated, including anteroposterior diameter (AD), transverse diameter (TD), effective diameter (ED), subcutaneous fat thickness (STF), and body surface area (BSA). Radiation dose indices included CTDIvol, dose-length product (DLP), and calculated effective dose (E). The lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of radiation-induced cancer was estimated using the online tool XrayRisk (www.XrayRisk.com).
Results
A total of 95 patients were included (51 males, 44 females; mean age 52 ± 17.5 years). The mean body measurements were: abdominal circumference 83 ± 9.4 cm; AD 19.6 ± 2.9 cm; TD 29.4 ± 2.69 cm; STF 2.12 ± 1.03 cm; ED 24 ± 2.75 cm; and BSA 1.6 ± 0.17 m². Mean DLP was 472.08 ± 152.81 mGy·cm, and mean effective dose was 7.07 ± 2.29 mSv. Effective dose showed a strong positive correlation with BMI, waist circumference, AD, TD, ED, and BSA (p < 0.01), and a moderate positive correlation with STF (p < 0.01). The mean LAR of radiation-induced cancer from a single urinary tract NCCT was 0.053 ± 0.032%. There was a moderate positive correlation between effective dose and LAR (r = 0.46, p < 0.01).
Conclusion
Effective radiation dose correlates positively with body index parameters. The mean LAR associated with a single non-contrast urinary tract CT scan was 0.053% and was moderately correlated with effective dose. These findings underscore the necessity of optimizing scanning protocols in accordance with patient body habitus while ensuring the appropriate use of CT indications. This approach balances the diagnostic benefits against the potential risks associated with radiation exposure.
Keywords
Effective radiation dose (E), lifetime attributable risk (LAR), Non-contrast computed tomography, urolithiasis
Article Details
References
niệu nguyên nhân do sỏi. Đại học Y - Dược Huế; 2023.
2. Albeshan S., Bashir A., et al. “Assessment of effective dose and radiation-induced cancer risk in CT-KUB”. Journal
of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2023; 16(3):100629.
3. Almohammed H. I., Elshami W., et al. “Optimizing CT abdomen–pelvis scan radiation dose: examining the role of body metrics (waist circumference, hip circumference, abdominal fat, and body mass index) in dose efficiency”. Tomography. 2024; 10(5): 643-653.
4. Chan V.O., McDermott S., Buckley O., et al. “The relationship of body mass index and abdominal fat on the radiation dose received during routine computed tomographic imaging of the abdomen and pelvis”. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2012; 63(4): 260-6.
5. Cooper J. N., Lodwick D. L., et al. “Patient characteristics associated with differences in radiation exposure from pediatric abdomen-pelvis CT scans: a quantile regression analysis”. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2017; 85: 7-12
6. Curran T. I., Maher M., et al. “Analysis of effective dose at computed tomography in a modern 64 slice multidetector
CT System in an Irish tertiary care centre with local and international reference standards”. medRxiv. 2020; 2020-04.
7. Haaga J. R., Miraldi F., et al. “The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies”. Radiology. 1981; 138(2): 449-454.
8. Inoue Y., Itoh H., Nagahara K., et al. “Relationships of Radiation Dose Indices with Body Size Indices in Adult Body Computed
Tomography”. Tomography. 2023; 9(4): 1381-1392.
9. Kalra M. K., Maher M. M., et al. “Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization”. Radiology. 2004; 230(3): 619-628.
10. Zarb F., Rainford L., & McEntee M. F. “AP diameter shows the strongest correlation with CTDI and DLP in abdominal
and chest CT”. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2010; 140(3): 266-273.
11. Karim M. K. A., Hashim S., et al. “Estimation of radiation cancer risk in CT-KUB”. Radiation Physics and Chemistry.
2017; 137: 130-134.
12. Kwon J. K., Chang I. H., et al. “Usefulness of low-dose nonenhanced computed tomography with iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: diagnostic performance and agreement between the urologist and the radiologist”. Urology. 2015; 85(3): 531-538.
13. Li X., Samei E., Segars W. P., et al. “Patient‐specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: Part II. Application to patients”. Medical physics. 2011; 38(1): 408-419.
14. Li X., Shu H., Zhang Y., et al. “Low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urinary stone”. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(28): 20103.
15. Skolarikos A., Geraghty R., Somani B., et al. “European association of urology guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of urolithiasis”. European Urology. 2025; 88(1), 64-75.
16. Murphy D., Rowan M., Cournane S., et al. “National DRLs for adult body CT scans based on body width”. Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics. 2014; 30(6): 718.
17. Panakkal N. C., Kadavigere R., & Sukumar S. “Influence of body mass index and abdominal circumference on radiation dose during abdominopelvic computed tomography”. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2023; 16(3): 1641-1646.
18. Phase B. V. “Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation”. Washington, DC: The British Institute
of Radiology. 2006.
19. Raman S. P., Mahesh M., et al. “CT scan parameters and radiation dose: practical advice for radiologists”. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2013; 10(11): 840-846.
20. Rehani M. M. “ICRP and IAEA actions on radiation protection in computed tomography”. Annals of the ICRP. 2012; 41(3-4): 154-160.
21. Smith-Bindman R., Chu P. W., et al. “Projected lifetime cancer risks from current computed tomography imaging”. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2025.
22. Bagherzadeh S., MirDerikvand A., & MohammadSharifi A. “Evaluation of radiation dose and radiation-induced
cancer risk associated with routine CT scan examinations”. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2024; 217, 111521.
23. Ticinesi A., Nouvenne A., et al. “Salt and nephrolithiasis”. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2016; 31(1): 39-45.
24. Weinrich J. M., Bannas P., et al. “Low-dose CT for evaluation of suspected urolithiasis: diagnostic yield for
assessment of alternative diagnoses”. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2018; 210(3): 557-563.
25. Frija G., Damilakis J., Paulo G., Loose R., Vano E., & European Society of Radiology (ESR). “Cumulative effective
dose from recurrent CT examinations in Europe: proposal for clinical guidance based on an ESR EuroSafe Imaging
survey”. European Radiology. 2021; 31(8), 5514-5523.
26. Shubayr N., & Alashban Y. “Estimation of radiation doses and lifetime attributable risk of radiation-induced cancer
in the uterus and prostate from abdomen pelvis CT examinations”. Frontiers in Public Health. 2023; 10, 1094328.
27. Alara Imaging, Inc. “Excessive Radiation Dose or Inadequate Image Quality for Diagnostic Computed Tomography
(CT) in Adults (Facility IQR)”. Electronic Clinical Quality Improvement (eCQI) Resource Center. 2025.
28. Harrison J. D., Balonov M., Bochud F., et al. “Use of dose quantities in radiological protection (ICRP Publication
147)”. ANNALS OF THE ICRP. 2021; 50(1), 9-82.