Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) on CT scanners can yield significant reductions in patient doses. Modulation is based on x-ray beam attenuation in body tissues obtained from scan projection radiographs (SPRs) and aims to maintain the same level of image quality throughout a scan. Noise level is important in judging image quality, but tissues in larger patients exhibit higher contrast resulting from the presence of fat. CT scanner manufacturers use different metrics to assess image quality. Some employ a simple measure of image noise, while others adopt a measure related to a reference image that accepts higher noise levels in more attenuating parts with higher contrast. At the present time there is no standard method for testing ATCM. This paper reviews the operation of different ATCM systems, considers options for testing, and sets out a framework that could be used for optimizing clinical protocols. If dose and image quality can be established for a reference phantom, the modulation performed by ATCM systems can be characterised using anatomical phantoms or geometrical elliptical phantoms which may be conical or include sections of varying dimension. For scanners using a reference image or mAs, selection of the image quality reference determines other factors. However, for scanners using a noise reference, a higher noise level should be selected for larger patients to avoid high doses, and the operator should ensure that appropriate limits are set for mA modulation. Other factors that need to be considered include the SPRs used to plan the ATCM and image thickness. Users should be aware of the mode of operation of the ATCM system on their CT scanner, and be familiar with the effects of changing different protocol parameters. The behaviour of ATCM systems should be established through testing of each CT scanner with suitable phantoms during commissioning.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has recently published a report (ICRP Publication 147; Ann. ICRP 50 , 2021) on the use of dose quantities in radiological protection, under the same authorship as this Memorandum. Here, we present a brief summary of the main elements of the report. ICRP Publication 147 consolidates and clarifies the explanations provided in the 2007 ICRP Recommendations (Publication 103) but reaches conclusions that go beyond those presented in Publication 103. Further guidance is provided on the scientific basis for the control of radiation risks using dose quantities in occupational, public and medical applications. It is emphasised that best estimates of risk to individuals will use organ/tissue absorbed doses, appropriate relative biological effectiveness factors and dose–risk models for specific health effects. However, bearing in mind uncertainties including those associated with risk projection to low doses or low dose rates, it is concluded that in the context of radiological protection, effective dose may be considered as an approximate indicator of possible risk of stochastic health effects following low-level exposure to ionising radiation. In this respect, it should also be recognised that lifetime cancer risks vary with age at exposure, sex and population group. The ICRP report also concludes that equivalent dose is not needed as a protection quantity. Dose limits for the avoidance of tissue reactions for the skin, hands and feet, and lens of the eye will be more appropriately set in terms of absorbed dose rather than equivalent dose.

Doses to the eye lenses of clinicians undertaking fluoroscopically guided procedures can exceed the dose annual limit of 20 mSv, so optimisation of radiation protection is essential. Ceiling-suspended shields and disposable radiation absorbing pads can reduce eye dose by factors of 2–7. Lead glasses that shield against exposures from the side can lower doses by 2.5–4.5 times. Training in effective use of protective devices is an essential element in achieving good protection and acceptable eye doses. Effective methods for dose monitoring are required to identify protection issues. Dosemeters worn adjacent to the eye provide the better option for interventional clinicians, but an unprotected dosemeter worn at the neck will give an indication of eye dose that is adequate for most interventional staff. Potential requirements for protective devices and dose monitoring can be determined from risk assessments using generic values for dose linked to examination workload.

This paper sets out guidelines for managing radiation exposure incidents involving patients in diagnostic and interventional radiology. The work is based on collation of experiences from representatives of international and national organizations for radiologists, medical physicists, radiographers, regulators, and equipment manufacturers, derived from an International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Meeting. More serious overexposures can result in skin doses high enough to produce tissue reactions, in interventional procedures and computed tomography, most notably from perfusion studies. A major factor involved has been deficiencies in training of staff in operation of equipment and optimization techniques. The use of checklists and time outs before procedures commence, and dose alerts when critical levels are reached during procedures, can provide safeguards to reduce the risks of these effects occurring. However, unintended and accidental overexposures resulting in relatively small additional doses can take place in any diagnostic or interventional x-ray procedure and it is important to learn from errors that occur, as these may lead to increased risks of stochastic effects. Such events may involve the wrong examinations, procedural errors, or equipment faults. Guidance is given on prevention, investigation, and dose calculation for radiology exposure incidents within healthcare facilities. Responsibilities should be clearly set out in formal policies, and procedures should be in place to ensure that root causes are identified and deficiencies addressed. When an overexposure of a patient or an unintended exposure of a foetus occurs, the foetal, organ, skin, and/or effective dose may be estimated from exposure data. When doses are very low, generic values for the examination may be sufficient, but a full assessment of doses to all exposed organs and tissues may sometimes be required. The use of general terminology to describe risks from stochastic effects is recommended rather than the calculation of numerical values, as these are misleading when applied to individuals.