Search

The diaphragm is the main inspiratory muscle and separates the thorax and the abdomen. In COPD, the evaluation of the diaphragm shape is clinically important, especially in the case of hyperinflation. However, delineating the diaphragm remains a challenge as it cannot be seen entirely on CT scans. Therefore, the lungs, ribs, sternum, and lumbar vertebrae are used as surrogate landmarks to delineate the diaphragm. We herein describe a CT-based method for evaluating the shape of the diaphragm using 3D Slicer—a free software that allows delineation of the diaphragm landmarks—in ten COPD patients. Using the segmentation performed with 3D Slicer, the diaphragm shape was reconstructed with open-source Free Pascal Compiler. From this graduated model, the length of the muscle fibers, the radius of curvature, and the area of the diaphragm—the main determinants of its function—can be measured. Inter- and intra-user variabilities were evaluated with Bland and Altman plots and linear mixed models. Except for the coronal length (p = 0.049), there were not statistically significant inter- or intra-user differences (p values ranging from 0.326 to 0.910) suggesting that this method is reproducible and repeatable. In conclusion, 3D Slicer can be applied to CT scans for determining the shape of the diaphragm in COPD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To estimate the variability of X-ray diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) depending on the number of X-ray devices and data per device.Methods: Dose-area products (DAP) were collected by the national nuclear control agency from the 590 devices installed in 345 medical centers in the country. From 2015 to 2017, the number of chest (postero-anterior (PA) view alone, and both postero-anterior and lateral views (PA/LAT)), abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine examinations collected in these centers ranged from 23,000 to 77,000. The impact of the number of devices and DAP data per device on DRLs' variabilities (95th confidence intervals divided by medians) is estimated using a bootstrapping method as a function of the number of devices and DAP per device.Results: The DRLs' variabilities ranged from 30 to 200% depending on the number of devices and DAP data per device but stabilized at 30% when the number of devices was higher than 200 for chest PA and abdomen examinations, 300 for lumbar spine and pelvis examinations, and 400 for chest PA/LAT examinations, regardless of the number of DAP data per device. Extrapolations of our results suggest that thousands of devices are necessary to reduce DRLs' variabilities to 10%.Conclusion: DAP-related DRL variabilities are high but only moderately influenced by the number of DAP data per device and of devices provided this number is higher than 200 to 400 devices according to the type of examination. Harmonization of methods of data collection between the authorities of the EU states should be recommended.Key Points: • DAP-related DRLs are not fixed values but ranges of values with at least 30% variability. • DAP-related DRLs strongly depend on the number of devices included when lower than 100. • If the number of devices included exceeds 200 to 400, the DRLs' variabilities do not depend on the number of DAP per device and should not exceed 30%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To estimate the variability of CT diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) according to the methods used for computing collected data.Methods: Dose-length products (DLP) were collected by our national nuclear control agency from the 250 devices installed in 140 medical centers in the country. In 2015, the number of head, thorax, abdomen, and lumbar spine examinations collected in these centers ranged from approximately 20,000 to 42,000. The impact on DRLs of the number of devices considered, as well as the differences in descriptive statistics (mean vs. median DLP) or methods of pooling DLP data (all devices vs. all patients), was investigated. Variability in DRLs was investigated using a bootstrapping method as a function of the numbers of devices and examinations per device.Results: As expected, DRLs derived from means were higher than those from medians, with substantial differences between device- and patient-related DRLs. Depending on the numbers of devices and DLP data per device, the variability ranged from 10 to 40% but was stabilized at a level of 10-20% if the number of devices was higher than 50 to 60, regardless of the number of DLP data per device.Conclusion: Number of devices and of DLP data per device, descriptive statistics, and pooling data influence DRLs. As differences in methods of computing survey data can artificially influence DRLs, harmonization among national authorities should be recommended.Key Points: • Due to CT dose variability, that of DRLs is at least of 10%. • DRLs derived from medians are lower than from means and differ from those obtained by pooling all patient data. • Fifty to 60 devices should be sufficient for estimating national DRLs, regardless of the number of data collected per device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the variabilities of dose-area-products (DAP) of frequent X-ray examinations collected for comparison with diagnostic reference levels (DRLs).Methods: DAP values of chest, abdomen, and lumbar spine examinations obtained on devices from two manufacturers were collected in three centers over 1 to 2 years. The variability of the average DAP results defined as the 95% confidence interval in percentage of their median value was calculated for increasing sample sizes, each examination and center. We computed the sample sizes yielding variabilities lower or equal to 25% and 10%. The effect of narrowing patient selection based on body weight was also investigated (ranges of 67-73 Kg, or 60-80 Kg).Results: DAP variabilities ranged from 75 to 170% of the median value when collecting small samples (10 to 20 DAP). To reduce this variability, larger samples are needed, collected over up to 2 years, regardless of the examination and center. A variability ≤ 10% could only be reached for chest X-rays, requiring up to 800 data. For the abdomen and lumbar spine, the lowest achievable variability was 25%, regardless of the body weight selection, requiring up to 400 data.Conclusion: Variabilities in DAP collected through small samples of ten data as recommended by authorities are very high, but can be reduced down to 25% (abdomen and lumbar spine) or even 10% (chest) through a substantial increase in sample sizes. Our findings could assist radiologists and regulatory authorities in estimating the reliability of the data obtained when performing X-ray dose surveys.Key Points: • Low but reasonable variabilities cannot be reached with samples sized as recommended by regulatory authorities. Higher numbers of DAP values are required to reduce the variability. • Variabilities of 10% for the chest and 25% for abdomen and lumbar spine examinations are achievable, provided large samples of data are collected over 1 year. • Our results could help radiologists and authorities interpret X-rays dose surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To test the hypothesis that referral guidelines are not sufficiently known by prescribers and that medico-legal concerns could influence the prescription of radiographs in minor chest trauma.Methods: We submitted a questionnaire including a typical clinical history and questions on reasons for prescribing radiographs of the ribs in minor chest trauma to 112 prescriptors (33 residents, 18 surgeons, 7 internists, 24 general practitioners and 30 ER physicians). All accepted to participate. Comparisons were performed by Fisher's exact test followed by a post-hoc analysis and by a McNemar test.Results: Fifty-eight percent of prescriptors proposed rib radiographs, most (89%) being unaware of the guidelines. Only 11% of them changed their intention to order radiographs after information on referral guidelines and radiation dose (P=0.057). The mean dose delivered by rib radiographs was 38 times higher than that of a chest X-ray. Legal and medico-legal concerns (requirements from insurance policies and avoidance of lawsuits) were the main reasons for requesting radiographs.Conclusion: Unsharpness of guidelines in addition to social and medico-legal issues, rather than medical reasons or the lack of knowledge of the guidelines, strongly influence the prescription of radiographs of the ribs in minor chest trauma.Key Points: • Most prescriptors order radiographs of the ribs in minor chest trauma. • Only few prescriptors are aware of referral guidelines. • Information on guidelines does not change their need for radiographs. • Motivations for ordering radiographs are rather legal than medical, but poor compliance to guidelines could also be explained by their unsharpness. • Radiation dose of rib radiographs was 38 times that of a PA chest radiograph. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine variability of volume computed tomographic dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) data, and propose a minimum sample size to achieve an expected precision.Methods: CTDIvol and DLP values of 19,875 consecutive CT acquisitions of abdomen (7268), thorax (3805), lumbar spine (3161), cervical spine (1515) and head (4106) were collected in two centers. Their variabilities were investigated according to sample size (10 to 1000 acquisitions) and patient body weight categories (no weight selection, 67-73 kg and 60-80 kg). The 95 % confidence interval in percentage of their median (CI95/med) value was calculated for increasing sample sizes. We deduced the sample size that set a 95 % CI lower than 10 % of the median (CI95/med ≤ 10 %).Results: Sample size ensuring CI95/med ≤ 10 %, ranged from 15 to 900 depending on the body region and the dose descriptor considered. In sample sizes recommended by regulatory authorities (i.e., from 10-20 patients), mean CTDIvol and DLP of one sample ranged from 0.50 to 2.00 times its actual value extracted from 2000 samples.Conclusions: The sampling error in CTDIvol and DLP means is high in dose surveys based on small samples of patients. Sample size should be increased at least tenfold to decrease this variability.Key Points: • Variability of dose descriptors is high regardless of the body region. • Variability of dose descriptors depends on weight selection and the region scanned. • Larger samples would reduce sampling errors of radiation dose data in surveys. • Totally or partially disabling AEC reduces dose variability and increases patient dose. • Median values of dose descriptors depend on the body weight selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]