Investig Clin Urol.  2016 Mar;57(2):113-118. 10.4111/icu.2016.57.2.113.

Radiation dosing in the investigation and follow-up of urolithiasis: Comparison between historical and contemporary practices

• O'Kane D
• D'Arcy FT
• Papa N
• Smith N
• McClintock S
• Lawrentschuk N
• Bolton DM

• KMID: 2363133
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.2.113

Abstract

PURPOSE
Computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis and follow-up of urolithiasis. Before the use of CT, intravenous urography (IVU) was the imaging modality of choice. CT remains contentious because of the cancer risk related to radiation exposure above a threshold level. We aimed to compare the radiation exposure dose to the average patient with urolithiasis in the era of CT with that of IVU.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Our hospital medical records database was searched for patients who presented to the Emergency Department over a 1-month period in 1990 with a diagnosis of renal colic. Patients with the same presentation, from the same month, in 2013 were also identified. A total of 14 patients from each year fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The estimated effective radiation exposure dose for each patient was calculated by using data from population-based studies.
RESULTS
The median effective radiation dose per patient in the 1990 group, for initial diagnosis and subsequent follow-up, was 4.05 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 3.7-4.4 mSv). The corresponding median dose in the 2013 group was 4.2 mSv (IQR, 4.2-4.9 mSv), and there was no evidence of a statistical difference between the groups (p=0.8).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the contentiousness related to the use of serial CT scanning, our study demonstrated that for radiological investigation and follow-up of urolithiasis, the estimated effective radiation exposure dose to each patient is only marginally higher than in the era of IVU, with improvements in length of hospital stay and time to definitive diagnosis.

Keyword

Radiation; Urolithiasis; X-ray computed tomography

MeSH Terms

Adult
Databases, Factual
Humans
Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data/trends
Long-Term Care/methods
Middle Aged
Professional Practice/trends
*Radiation Dosage
Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
Urography/methods
Urolithiasis/*diagnostic imaging

Reference

1. Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N, Raslan A, Vandendris M, Bellemans M. Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 172:1491–1494.

2. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, Essenmacher KR, Verga M, Glickman MG, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995; 194:789–794.

3. Lim GS, Jang SH, Son JH, Lee JW, Hwang JS, Lim CH, et al. Comparison of non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography and intravenous pyelogram for detection of patients with urinary calculi. Korean J Urol. 2014; 55:120–123.

4. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:2277–2284.

5. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008; 248:254–263.

6. Drake T, Jain N, Bryant T, Wilson I, Somani BK. Should low-dose computed tomography kidneys, ureter and bladder be the new investigation of choice in suspected renal colic? A systematic review. Indian J Urol. 2014; 30:137–143.

7. Linet MS, Slovis TL, Miller DL, Kleinerman R, Lee C, Rajaraman P, et al. Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62:75–100.

8. Mettler FA Jr, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot. 2000; 20:353–359.

9. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT Vol. I. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Annex D: medical radiation exposure. Vienna: UNSCEAR;2007. p. 375–377.

10. Horwich A, Fossa SD, Huddart R, Dearnaley DP, Stenning S, Aresu M, et al. Second cancer risk and mortality in men treated with radiotherapy for stage I seminoma. Br J Cancer. 2014; 110:256–263.

11. Chung P, Warde P. Contemporary management of stage I and II seminoma. Curr Urol Rep. 2013; 14:525–533.

12. Shore RE. Radiation impacts on human health: certain, fuzzy, and unknown. Health Phys. 2014; 106:196–205.

13. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRPM). Ionising radiation exposure of the population of the Unites States (2009). NCRP report No. 160. Bethesda (MD): NCRPM;2009.

14. Public Health England. Guidance: Ionising radiation: dose comparisons. London: Public Health England;Published 18 March 2011 [Internet]. cited 2015 Feb 14. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons.

15. International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency;1996. cited 2015 Feb 14. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@safework/documents/publication/wcms_152685.pdf.

16. NRC Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20: standards for protection against radiation: subpart C, occupational dose limits. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission;cited 2015 Feb 14. Available from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/full-text.html.

17. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Lee C, Feigelson HS, Flynn M, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010. JAMA. 2012; 307:2400–2409.

18. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169:2071–2077.

19. Keijzers GB, Britton CJ. Doctors' knowledge of patient radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging requested in the emergency department. Med J Aust. 2010; 193:450–453.

20. Barbic D, Barbic S, Dankoff J. An exploration of Canadian emergency physicians' and residents' knowledge of computed tomography radiation dosing and risk. CJEM. 2015; 17:131–139.

21. Schwartz DT. Counter-Point: are we really ordering too many CT scans? West J Emerg Med. 2008; 9:120–122.

22. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 2013; 346:f2360.

23. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169:2078–2086.

24. Kalb B, Sharma P, Salman K, Ogan K, Pattaras JG, Martin DR. Acute abdominal pain: is there a potential role for MRI in the setting of the emergency department in a patient with renal calculi? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 32:1012–1023.

25. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis [Internet]. Anheim (NL): European Association of Urology;c2014. cited 2015 Aug 5. Available from:http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/22-Urolithiasis_LR.pdf.

26. Yan JW, McLeod SL, Edmonds ML, Sedran RJ, Theakston KD. Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study. CJEM. 2015; 17:38–45.

27. Ray AA, Ghiculete D, Pace KT, Honey RJ. Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi. Urology. 2010; 76:295–300.

28. McLaughlin PD, Murphy KP, Hayes SA, Carey K, Sammon J, Crush L, et al. Non-contrast CT at comparable dose to an abdominal radiograph in patients with acute renal colic; impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and diagnostic performance. Insights Imaging. 2014; 5:217–230.

29. Toepker M, Kuehas F, Kienzl D, Herwig R, Spazierer E, Krauss B, et al. Dual energy computerized tomography with a split bolus-a 1-stop shop for patients with suspected urinary stones? J Urol. 2014; 191:792–797.

30. Valencia V, Moghadassi M, Kriesel DR, Cummings S, Smith-Bindman R. Study of tomography of nephrolithiasis evaluation (STONE): methodology, approach and rationale. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014; 38:92–101.