Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: The RAD-IR study. Part III: Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units

Stephen Balter, Beth A. Schueler, Donald L. Miller, Patricia E. Cole, Hollington T. Lu, Alejandro Berenstein, Robin Albert, Jeffrey D. Georgia, Patrick T. Noonan, Eric J. Russell, Tim W. Malisch, Robert L. Vogelzang, Michael Geisinger, John F. Cardella, James St. George, George L. Miller, Jon Anderson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To present the physics data supporting the validity of the clinical dose data from the RAD-IR study and to document the performance of dosimetry-components of these systems over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sites at seven academic medical centers in the United States prospectively contributed data for each of 12 fluoroscopic units. All units were compatible with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 60601-2-43. Comprehensive evaluations and periodic consistency checks were performed to verify the performance of each unit's dosimeter. Comprehensive evaluations compared system performance against calibrated ionization chambers under nine combinations of operating conditions. Consistency checks provided more frequent dosimetry data, with use of each unit's built-in dosimetry equipment and a standard water phantom. RESULTS: During the 3-year study, data were collected for 48 comprehensive evaluations and 581 consistency checks. For the comprehensive evaluations, the mean (95% confidence interval range) ratio of system to external measurements was 1.03 (1.00-1.05) for fluoroscopy and 0.93 (0.90-0.96) for acquisition. The expected ratio was 0.93 for both. For consistency checks, the values were 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for fluoroscopy and 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for acquisition. Each system was compared across time to its own mean value. Overall uncertainty was estimated by adding the standard deviations of the comprehensive and consistency measurements in quadrature. The authors estimate that the overall error in clinical cumulative dose measurements reported in RAD-IR is 24%. CONCLUSION: Dosimetric accuracy was well within the tolerances established by IEC standard 60601-2-43. The clinical dose data reported in the RAD-IR study are valid.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)919-926
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume15
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2004

Fingerprint

Interventional Radiology
Fluoroscopy
Radiation
Physics
Uncertainty
Confidence Intervals
Equipment and Supplies
Water

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures : The RAD-IR study. Part III: Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units. / Balter, Stephen; Schueler, Beth A.; Miller, Donald L.; Cole, Patricia E.; Lu, Hollington T.; Berenstein, Alejandro; Albert, Robin; Georgia, Jeffrey D.; Noonan, Patrick T.; Russell, Eric J.; Malisch, Tim W.; Vogelzang, Robert L.; Geisinger, Michael; Cardella, John F.; St. George, James; Miller, George L.; Anderson, Jon.

In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 15, No. 9, 09.2004, p. 919-926.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Balter, S, Schueler, BA, Miller, DL, Cole, PE, Lu, HT, Berenstein, A, Albert, R, Georgia, JD, Noonan, PT, Russell, EJ, Malisch, TW, Vogelzang, RL, Geisinger, M, Cardella, JF, St. George, J, Miller, GL & Anderson, J 2004, 'Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: The RAD-IR study. Part III: Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units', Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 919-926. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000130864.68139.08
Balter, Stephen ; Schueler, Beth A. ; Miller, Donald L. ; Cole, Patricia E. ; Lu, Hollington T. ; Berenstein, Alejandro ; Albert, Robin ; Georgia, Jeffrey D. ; Noonan, Patrick T. ; Russell, Eric J. ; Malisch, Tim W. ; Vogelzang, Robert L. ; Geisinger, Michael ; Cardella, John F. ; St. George, James ; Miller, George L. ; Anderson, Jon. / Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures : The RAD-IR study. Part III: Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units. In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2004 ; Vol. 15, No. 9. pp. 919-926.
@article{f595d9fd9a564e81b40782d3e5add586,
title = "Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: The RAD-IR study. Part III: Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To present the physics data supporting the validity of the clinical dose data from the RAD-IR study and to document the performance of dosimetry-components of these systems over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sites at seven academic medical centers in the United States prospectively contributed data for each of 12 fluoroscopic units. All units were compatible with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 60601-2-43. Comprehensive evaluations and periodic consistency checks were performed to verify the performance of each unit's dosimeter. Comprehensive evaluations compared system performance against calibrated ionization chambers under nine combinations of operating conditions. Consistency checks provided more frequent dosimetry data, with use of each unit's built-in dosimetry equipment and a standard water phantom. RESULTS: During the 3-year study, data were collected for 48 comprehensive evaluations and 581 consistency checks. For the comprehensive evaluations, the mean (95{\%} confidence interval range) ratio of system to external measurements was 1.03 (1.00-1.05) for fluoroscopy and 0.93 (0.90-0.96) for acquisition. The expected ratio was 0.93 for both. For consistency checks, the values were 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for fluoroscopy and 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for acquisition. Each system was compared across time to its own mean value. Overall uncertainty was estimated by adding the standard deviations of the comprehensive and consistency measurements in quadrature. The authors estimate that the overall error in clinical cumulative dose measurements reported in RAD-IR is 24{\%}. CONCLUSION: Dosimetric accuracy was well within the tolerances established by IEC standard 60601-2-43. The clinical dose data reported in the RAD-IR study are valid.",
author = "Stephen Balter and Schueler, {Beth A.} and Miller, {Donald L.} and Cole, {Patricia E.} and Lu, {Hollington T.} and Alejandro Berenstein and Robin Albert and Georgia, {Jeffrey D.} and Noonan, {Patrick T.} and Russell, {Eric J.} and Malisch, {Tim W.} and Vogelzang, {Robert L.} and Michael Geisinger and Cardella, {John F.} and {St. George}, James and Miller, {George L.} and Jon Anderson",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/01.RVI.0000130864.68139.08",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "919--926",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures

T2 - The RAD-IR study. Part III: Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units

AU - Balter, Stephen

AU - Schueler, Beth A.

AU - Miller, Donald L.

AU - Cole, Patricia E.

AU - Lu, Hollington T.

AU - Berenstein, Alejandro

AU - Albert, Robin

AU - Georgia, Jeffrey D.

AU - Noonan, Patrick T.

AU - Russell, Eric J.

AU - Malisch, Tim W.

AU - Vogelzang, Robert L.

AU - Geisinger, Michael

AU - Cardella, John F.

AU - St. George, James

AU - Miller, George L.

AU - Anderson, Jon

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - PURPOSE: To present the physics data supporting the validity of the clinical dose data from the RAD-IR study and to document the performance of dosimetry-components of these systems over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sites at seven academic medical centers in the United States prospectively contributed data for each of 12 fluoroscopic units. All units were compatible with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 60601-2-43. Comprehensive evaluations and periodic consistency checks were performed to verify the performance of each unit's dosimeter. Comprehensive evaluations compared system performance against calibrated ionization chambers under nine combinations of operating conditions. Consistency checks provided more frequent dosimetry data, with use of each unit's built-in dosimetry equipment and a standard water phantom. RESULTS: During the 3-year study, data were collected for 48 comprehensive evaluations and 581 consistency checks. For the comprehensive evaluations, the mean (95% confidence interval range) ratio of system to external measurements was 1.03 (1.00-1.05) for fluoroscopy and 0.93 (0.90-0.96) for acquisition. The expected ratio was 0.93 for both. For consistency checks, the values were 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for fluoroscopy and 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for acquisition. Each system was compared across time to its own mean value. Overall uncertainty was estimated by adding the standard deviations of the comprehensive and consistency measurements in quadrature. The authors estimate that the overall error in clinical cumulative dose measurements reported in RAD-IR is 24%. CONCLUSION: Dosimetric accuracy was well within the tolerances established by IEC standard 60601-2-43. The clinical dose data reported in the RAD-IR study are valid.

AB - PURPOSE: To present the physics data supporting the validity of the clinical dose data from the RAD-IR study and to document the performance of dosimetry-components of these systems over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sites at seven academic medical centers in the United States prospectively contributed data for each of 12 fluoroscopic units. All units were compatible with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 60601-2-43. Comprehensive evaluations and periodic consistency checks were performed to verify the performance of each unit's dosimeter. Comprehensive evaluations compared system performance against calibrated ionization chambers under nine combinations of operating conditions. Consistency checks provided more frequent dosimetry data, with use of each unit's built-in dosimetry equipment and a standard water phantom. RESULTS: During the 3-year study, data were collected for 48 comprehensive evaluations and 581 consistency checks. For the comprehensive evaluations, the mean (95% confidence interval range) ratio of system to external measurements was 1.03 (1.00-1.05) for fluoroscopy and 0.93 (0.90-0.96) for acquisition. The expected ratio was 0.93 for both. For consistency checks, the values were 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for fluoroscopy and 1.00 (0.98-1.02) for acquisition. Each system was compared across time to its own mean value. Overall uncertainty was estimated by adding the standard deviations of the comprehensive and consistency measurements in quadrature. The authors estimate that the overall error in clinical cumulative dose measurements reported in RAD-IR is 24%. CONCLUSION: Dosimetric accuracy was well within the tolerances established by IEC standard 60601-2-43. The clinical dose data reported in the RAD-IR study are valid.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4544269899&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4544269899&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.RVI.0000130864.68139.08

DO - 10.1097/01.RVI.0000130864.68139.08

M3 - Article

C2 - 15361559

AN - SCOPUS:4544269899

VL - 15

SP - 919

EP - 926

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

IS - 9

ER -