<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJRad</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Radiology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-3024</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojrad.2022.123013</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJRad-120109</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Evaluation of the Fetal-Maternal Radiation Doses in CT-Pelvimetry and Estimation of the Fetal Radiation Risks in 03 Radiology Departments in Douala-Cameroon
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Celestin</surname><given-names>Mpeke Mokubangele</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Alexandre</surname><given-names>Ngwa Ebongue</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Daniel</surname><given-names>Bongue</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Maurice</surname><given-names>Moyo Ndontchueng</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Boniface</surname><given-names>Moifo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>National Radiation Protection Agency of Cameroon, Yaounde, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Douala, Douala, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Centre for Atomic Molecular Physics and Quantum Optics (CEPAMOQ), University of Douala, Douala, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Yaounde 1, Yaounde, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>08</day><month>09</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>113</fpage><lpage>124</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>21,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>28,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Background: CT in pregnant patients requires careful consideration of the radiation dose and corresponding radiation risks from ionizing radiation to the unborn child. The determination of foetal dose in diagnostic radiology is of interest as a basis for risk estimates from medical exposure of the pregnant patient. 
  Objective: To evaluate the foetal-maternal radiation doses delivered during the CT-Pelvimetry procedure and to estimate the risk to the unborn child to develop a cancer in childhood and hereditary disease. 
  Materials and Methods: We investigate the foetal-maternal radiation doses during CT-scan Pelvimetry in Douala (Cameroon). Data of 194 helical acquisition CT-Pelvimetry were collected between May 2017 and May 2019. An average DLP for the examination was established and the average effective dose was evaluated. The fetal dose was calculated and the FetDose V5 program was used for risk estimations. 
  Results: The average dose length product (DLP) was 56.17 mGy&#183;cm (range: 51.69 - 59.21 mGy&#183;cm). The average effective dose received by women pregnant was 0.78 mSv. The mean individual fetal dose was 1.5 mGy (range: 0.76 - 1.87 mGy). The risk of Childhood Cancer calculated was: range 1 in 16,000 to 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 260,000 to 1 in 106,000 to the risk of Hereditary Disease, respectively. 
  Conclusion: This study shows that the foetal-maternal doses delivered during CT-Pelvimetry examinations are very low and the risks of childhood cancers and hereditary diseases are derisory, the technology should be further investigated to ensure its full potential for optimal diagnostic accuracy.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>CT-Pelvimetry</kwd><kwd> Fetal-Maternal Radiation Dose</kwd><kwd> Fetal Radiation Risk</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Computed tomography (CT) is one of the most popular methods in medical imaging. During the past decades the number of CT examinations in pregnant patients has been growing constantly. However, CT in pregnant patients requires careful consideration of the radiation dose and corresponding radiation risks from ionizing radiation to the unborn child. The potential health risks make it important to estimate radiation dose absorbed by the fetus when a pregnant woman has a CT scan. Assessment of maternal pelvic dimensions is usually considered necessary where vaginal delivery is contemplated in a breech presentation or if fetal-pelvic disproportions are suspected in a current or previous pregnancy. Pelvimetry assesses diameters and indexes of a woman’s pelvis aiming to depict fetal-pelvic disproportion. This can be done by clinical examination, conventional X-rays, digital fluorography, computed tomography (CT) scan, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref2">2</xref>]. Except the MRI, pelvimetry techniques result in a radiation dose to mother and fetus which, depending on how the technique is performed, can vary by up to 40-fold [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref4">4</xref>].</p><p>Conventional X-ray pelvimetry was the initial method allowing indirect measurements and appreciation of the overall shape of the pelvis. However, CT of the pelvis is now the standard of reference [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref5">5</xref>]. Indeed, CT yields a better estimate of obstetrical diameters of the pelvic inlet, and reduces the radiation dose to the mother and fetus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref6">6</xref>]. The helical acquisitions provided reliable measurements of pelvic diameters: the promonto-retro-pubic diameter, the transverse median and bi-spinous diameters. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-irradiating imaging technique that also yields reliable pelvic measurements [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref7">7</xref>], and although it seems to be a good alternative, the use of MRI remains limited by availability issues [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref8">8</xref>].</p><p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiation doses delivered to the fetus and their mothers during the CT-Pelvimetry examinations and estimation of the effective dose in order to estimate the fetal dose and risk in 03 radiology departments in Douala-Cameroon.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Design and Study Site</title><p>It was a cross-sectional study relating to the doses delivered in CT-Pelvimetry, carried out with 03 radiology departments in the city of Douala-Cameroon, amongst which 01 in the public sector and 02 in the private sector; 02 Hitachi brand and 01 General Electric brand and having a 16-slice CT system commissioned in 2017 and 2018. The sample of 03 services was constituted after having solicited the 13 hospitals registered in the city of Douala with a functional CT scanner. One service did not respond to our request; two others were no longer operational after the beginning of the study because CT scan device were out of service. We did not have CT-Pelvimetry data in 7 other departments.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Duration and Study Procedure</title><p>The collection of data was done manually over a period of 24 months (from May 2017 until May 2019). Part of the data was collected daily during CT scan procedures and the other part was extracted from the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) of the radiology units and was entered into an Excel file and verified. Pelvic CT examinations were performed in supine position. A lateral scout view was obtained, followed by helical acquisition from the antero-superior iliac spine to the ischial tuberosity. Following CT manufacturer recommendations, images were acquired at a thickness of 5 mm with the constants held at 120 kV and 17.80 - 18.80 mAS (Hitachi brand); 52.68 mAs (GE brand) and pitch 1.5. The different obstetrical diameters of the pelvis were measured on a dedicated computer equipped with a picture and archiving communication system, using multiplanar reconstruction.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Study Population</title><p>In this study, we included all patients having benefited from a CT-Pelvimetry examination in the three services and providing required dosimetric data during the period of our study.</p><p>We carried out a sample of convenience, the total of 194 examinations was obtained during the period of the study. This examination exclusively concerning women of childbearing age.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Data of Interest</title><p>The studied variables were: CT device brand, model and number of detector, installation date, date of completion of the examination, patient’s age, CT-Pelvimetry indication, pregnancy term, kilo voltage (kV), amperage (mA), time of tube rotation (s), tube current (mAs), the displayed CT dose index (CTDIvol) and the Dose Length Product (DLP). An average DLP for the examination was established to the DLP Data displayed on the CT console and the average Effective dose was evaluated using the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) conversion factor [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref10">10</xref>].</p><p>( mGy ⋅ cm ) = CTDIvol &#215; scan   length (1)</p><p>The average Effective Dose (ED) doses associated with the CT-Pelvimetry exam studied were assessed from the calculated DLP using a region- and age-specific coefficient:</p><p>E ( mSv ) = EDLP region,age &#215; DLP (2)</p><p>where EDLP<sub>region,age</sub> (mSv (mGy·cm)<sup>−1</sup>) is the normalized value of effective dose per dose-length product over a specific body region for a particular standard patient age [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref13">13</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Fetal Dose Calculations</title><p>The fetal dose was calculated by the online software, called “Dose Fetal” Web [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref14">14</xref>] to estimate the radiation dose received by the fetus from CT. The algorithm employed by the tool is based on Monte Carlo simulations performed on computational phantoms and real data of pregnant patients at different gestational stages. The vendor-independent tool, can be used to calculate radiation dose exposure for any scanned body region, scan length and CT protocol. Its pull down-menu allows users to select gestational age and tube voltage. Additionally, users need to enter the volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), and select the upper and lower positions of the scan. The users can also add the maternal abdominal perimeter in millimetres to improve the accuracy of calculations, and the patient ID for their records. Calculations can be saved in PDF format.</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Consequence of Fetal Irradiation</title><p>The possible cancer risks caused by ionizing radiation doses of ~1 mSv or less are too small to be estimated directly from epidemiological data. The linear no-threshold (LNT) approach to estimating such risks involves using epidemiological data at higher (but still low) doses to establish an “anchor point”, and then extrapolating the excess cancer risk linearly down from this point to the low dose of interest [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref15">15</xref>].</p><p>We used FetDose program to calculate the risk to the fœtus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref17">17</xref>].</p><p>According to Osei et al., the fetal radiation risk (R) is calculated as</p><p>R = D f &#215; RC (3)</p><p>where RC is the risk coefficient for the consequence of interest (Osei, et al., 2003). The risk of childhood cancer induction: risk coefficient used is 8.0 &#215; 10<sup>−</sup><sup>5</sup>  per mGy and hereditary effects: risk coefficient used is 0.5 &#215; 10<sup>−</sup><sup>5</sup> per mGy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref20">20</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Data Analysis</title><p>Data analysis was carried out, first per service, then for all the 3 services. The dose metrics were analyzed and the proposed dose levels were established at 50th and 75th percentile of dose distribution. Our data were compared with other previous studies from France [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref21">21</xref>]; Sweden [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref22">22</xref>], and Canada [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref17">17</xref>]. The FetDose program was used to calculate all risk estimations.</p></sec><sec id="s2_8"><title>2.8. Ethical Statement</title><p>This study was authorized by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee for Human Health at the University of Douala and by the Regional Health Delegation of the littoral Region of Cameroon. In order to respect confidentiality, all the data collected was studied anonymously, the services were coded by numbers (from 1 to 3).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>A total of 194 CT-Pelvimetry data produced using a helical acquisition was collected. The different radiology services, the characteristics of the CT scan devices and the number of data collected per CT scan device is shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>(a) and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>(b) show the Patient’s age range, gestational age and clinical indications. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows the CT-Pelvimetry acquisition parameters, delivered</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Radiology services, characteristics of the CT scan devices included in the study and the number of data collected per CT scan device</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Site</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Characteristics of CT-machine</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Number of CT-exams</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CT-machine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mark</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of detectors of CT-machine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Year of installation</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hitachi</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Supria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >General Electric</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Revolution</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hitachi</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Supria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >194</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap-group id="2"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> (a) Patient’s age range, gestational age and clinical indications; (b) Clinical indication by service</title></caption><table-wrap id="2_1"><caption><title> (b)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Indications</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Gestational age (weeks)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Age range</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >[19, 24]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[25, 29]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[30, 34]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[35, 40]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scarred Uterus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.82%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.46%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.86%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.66%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clinically contracted pelvis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.40%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.34%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.12%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.89%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Breech presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.73%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.92%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.19%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.36%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Short stature (&lt;1.50 m)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.58%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.44%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.47%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33,50%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.60%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="2_2"><caption><title></title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Services</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="10"  >Indications</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Scarred uterus</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Clinically contracted pelvis</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Breech presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Short stature (&lt;1.50 m)</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >194</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Acquisition parameters and doses</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Services</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Acquisition parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Doses</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal absorbed dose</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >kV</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >mA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time of Tube Rotation (s)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >mAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CTDIw (mGy)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DLP (mGy·cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >E (mSv)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean foetal dose (mGy)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.87</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>doses and estimated mean of radiation dose and effective dose. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows a summary of the mean and range of fetal absorbed dose and the fetal radiation risk of childhood cancer and hereditary effects.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Radiology Departments</title><p>03 radiology departments in Douala yielded information on a total of 194 CT protocols performed. 46.4% were collected in the first site, 41.2% in the second and 12.4% in the third. The CT machines were 16 multidetectors (General Electric Revolution and Hitachi Supria) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Age Frequency Distribution and Clinical Indications</title><p>Of the 194 examinations, 38.66% were for scar uterus; 29.9% were for clinically contracted pelvis; 28.35% were for breech presentation and 3.09% were for deformation of the pelvis indication. Mean age of pregnant women was 30 years (range: 19 - 40 years, median = 30 years). The mean term and the time of imaging examinations was 36 weeks of amenorrhea (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>(a), and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>(b)). All these clinical indications were justified [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref23">23</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3 Acquisition Parameters and Delivered Doses</title><p>In the three services, all protocols were performed according helical acquisition with a voltage of 120 kV, 32.31 mAs average. The mean radiation dose of helical acquisitions, CTDIw and DLP were 1.97 mGy (range: 1.00 - 2.46 mGy) and 56.17 mGy·cm (range: 51.69 - 59.21 mGy·cm) respectively. The mean effective dose was 0.78 mSv (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Fetal Dose and Consequence of Foetal Irradiation</title><p>The mean fetal dose calculated was 1.5 mGy (range: 0.76 - 1.87). The risk of Childhood Cancer calculated was 1 in 16,000 - 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 260,000 - 1 in 106,000 to the risk of Hereditary Disease, respectively (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Comparison between Doses</title><p>CT-Pelvimetry doses and fetal dose from our work were compared with others studies (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Fetal dose-averaged and risk of childhood cancers and hereditary effects for the 194 fetuses exposed during CT-Pelvimetry examinations of their mothers</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Fetal dose range (mGy)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Risk of childhood cancer (risk coefficient: 8.0 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup> per mGy)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Risk of hereditary effects (risk coefficient: 0.5 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup> per mGy)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Min.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.08 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Averaged</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Max.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.96 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.935 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison between doses</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Dosimetry</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Our study (MDCT 16 slices, Hitachi Supria 16 and General Electric Revolution 16)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Thibaut et al. (MDCT Brilliance 40) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref21">21</xref>]</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Slimane et al. (SIEMENS Somatom Sensation 64 CT) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref24">24</xref>]</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Phexell et al. (standard spiral) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref22">22</xref>]</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CTDIw (mGy)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >DLP (mGy·cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E (mSv)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean fetal dose</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Comparison between Results from Our Work and Others Studies</title><p>The mean fetal dose (1.50 mGy) equivalent to 5 chest X-rays examination if we consider the minimum dose of 0.3 mGy for a frontal chest X-ray. Doses, CTDIvol and DLP from our study were 1.97 mGy (range: 1.00 - 2.46 mGy) and 56.17 mGy·cm (range: 51.69 - 59.21 mGy·cm) respectively, the mean effective dose was 0.78 mSv. These doses were globally higher than those in other studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref22">22</xref>]. The DLP value from our pelvimetry examinations was 1.5 to 3.8 higher compared to these studies. Thibaut et al. doses were estimates generated by CT scan software while the measurements in the Phexell et al. study were executed on an anthropomorphic phantom and thermos-luminescent dosimeters (TLD) were used for the dose measurements, and bags of sodium chloride were chosen for simulation of the pregnancy in the third trimester, especially lower than 36 weeks. But CTDIvol, effective dose and fetal dose from our study was lower than that value found by Slimane et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref24">24</xref>] (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>These doses were the same as those in our previous study [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref25">25</xref>].</p><p>The fetal dose and risks from our work concerning CT-Pelvimetry exclusively are lower compared to the E.K. Osei et al. study which concerned CT-pelvis examination.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Fetal Absorbed Dose and Risk</title><p>The radiation doses received by the 194 foetuses ranges from 0.76 to 1.87 mGy (1.5 mGy mean foetal dose) from CT-Pelvimetry examination (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). According to the conclusions of the studies carried out by the ICRP, there is no deterministic effect of practical importance in humans below a dose of at least 100 mGy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref26">26</xref>]. Doll and Wakeford showed that radiation doses of the order of 10 mGy received by the fetus in utero produce a consequent increase in the risk of childhood cancer. The excess absolute risk coefficient at this level of exposure is approximately 6% per gray [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref27">27</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Risk of Hereditary Disease</title><p>The probability of induced hereditary effect on the basis of the doses received by the fetuses (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>) in this study shows that the risk to the individual fetuses was 1 in 140,000 (range: 1 in 260,000 - 1 in 106,000) from CT-Pelvimetry examination. The risks values are very low compared to the natural incidence. The natural frequency of genetic disorders and congenital abnormalities occur in about 2% - 5% of all live births [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref28">28</xref>]. Thus, the increased genetic risk of 1 in 10,714 for an individual fetus associated with the fetal dose in this study is very small compared with the natural risk of genetic disease.</p></sec><sec id="s4_4"><title>4.4. Risk of Childhood Cancer</title><p>The risk of 1 in 9000 (range: 1 in 16,000 - 1 in 10,000) associated with the mean absorbed dose of 1.5 mGy from our study is very law comparable to the natural baseline risk of childhood cancer 1 in 650 (1.5 &#215; 10<sup>−3</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref29">29</xref>]. The BM estimated 360,114 total childhood cancers occurring worldwide in 2015; 54% in Asia and 28% in Africa. BM estimated standardised rates ranged from ~178 cases per million in Europe and North America, through to ~218 cases per million in West and Middle Africa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref30">30</xref>].</p><p>The risk for the fetus to develop cancer after the mother has undergone any kind of radiological examination during pregnancy has been investigated and found to be minimal by Bailey et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref32">32</xref>], and has also been reported in ICRP 84 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>). The radiation dose in the spiral method was lower than 1.97 mGy. The absorbed mean radiation dose to the fetus (1.50 mGy) using the spiral method is considered low, especially when the dose is related to the 99.7% probability that a child (0 - 19 years) will not develop a malignancy from the absorbed doses ≤5 mGy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref32">32</xref>]. Consequently, all such CT-Pelvimetry examination can be carried out on pregnant women, as long as they have been clinically justified and the dose is kept to minimum consist with the diagnostic requirement.</p><p>Our study had some limitations. The CTDIvol or its derivative the DLP data were estimates generated by CT scan software, which depend on scan acquisition parameters. They should be taken as an index of radiation output by the system for comparison purposes. We do not have gold standard direct dosimetry data to compare. Perhaps, the next step is to compare our data with CTDIvol and DLP estimates using an anthropomorphic phantom with dosimeters (phantom study).</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison between fetal dose and risk</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Study</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal dose range (mGy)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal dose-averaged (mGy)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Risk of childhood cancer</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Risk of hereditary effects</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Our Study (CT-pevimetry examination)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76 - 1.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 in 16,000 - 1 in 10,000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 in 260,000 - 1 in 106,000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >E.K. Osei et al. study (CT-pelvis examination) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref17">17</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.32 - 17.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 in 10,000 - 1 in 1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 in 140,000 - 1 in 11,000</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The fetal dose and risks from our work concerning CT-Pelvimetry exclusively are lower compared to the E.K. Osei et al. study which concerned CT-pelvis examination.</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Probability of bearing a healthy child as a function of dose according to ICRP 84. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120109-ref31">31</xref>]</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Dose absorbed by the embryo or fetus, in mGy, in addition to natural radiation</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Probability that the child does not present malformation, %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Probability that the child does not develop Cancer (0 - 19 years), % 1)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(near 97)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The fetal-maternal dose levels from CT-Pelvimetry examinations are very low and the risks of childhood cancers and hereditary diseases are derisory. Since the absorbed dose to the fetus, using CT technology, is a low level, the technology should be further investigated to ensure its full potential for optimal diagnostic accuracy.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors are grateful to the Abdus Salam International Centre for theoretical physics (ICTP) for its support through the OEA-AC-71 project at the Centre for atomic molecular physics and quantum optics (CEPAMOQ) of the University of Douala (Cameroon).</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Mpeke Mokubangele, C., Ngwa Ebongue, A., Bongue, D., Moyo Ndontchueng, M. and Moifo, B. (2022) Evaluation of the Fetal-Maternal Radiation Doses in CT-Pelvimetry and Estimation of the Fetal Radiation Risks in 03 Radiology Departments in Douala-Cameroon. Open Journal of Radiology, 12, 113-124. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojrad.2022.123013</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.120109-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sibony, O., Alran, S. and Oury, J.F. (2006) Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section: X-Ray Pelvimetry at Term Is Informative. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 34, 212-215.  
https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2006.037</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Keller, T.M., Rake, A., Michel, S.C., Seifert, B., Efe, G., Treiber, K., Huch, R., Marincek, B. and Kubik-Huch, R.A. (2003) Obstetric MR Pelvimetry: Reference Values and Evaluation of Inter- and Intra-Observer Error and Intra Individual Variability. Radiology, 227, 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2271011658</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thomas, S.M., Bees, N.R. and Adam, E.J. (1998) Trends in the Use of Pelvimetry Techniques. Clinical Radiology, 53, 293-295.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(98)80130-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anderson, N. (1983) X-Ray Pelvimetry: Helpful or Harmful? Journal of Family Practice, 17, 405-412. https://europepmc.org/article/med/6886643</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adam, P., Alberge, Y., Sablayrolles, J.L. and Grandjean, B. (1986) Pelvimetry by Digitalized Radiography. Journal de Radiologie, 67, 47-52.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Breidt, D., Bouquigny, F., Clément, J.P., Menéchal, P., Levert, M., Quéreux, C., et al. (2003) Helical CT-Pelvimetry: Advantages of a Low Dose Volume Acquisition Technique. Journal de Radiologie, 84, 1027-1030.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stark, D.D., McCarthy, S.M., Filly, R.A., Parer, J.T., Hricak, H. and Callen, P.W. (1985) Pelvimetry by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology, 144, 947-950. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.144.5.947</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Aubry, S., Padoin, P., Petegnief, Y., Vidal, C., Riethmuller, D. and Delabrousse, E. (2018) Can Three-Dimensional Pelvimetry Using Low-Dose Stereoradiography Replace Low-Dose CT Pelvimetry? Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 99, 569-576.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2018.02.008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McCollough, C.H. and Schueler, B.A. (2000) Educational Treatise: Calculation of Effective Dose. Medical Physics, 27, 828-837. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598948</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shrimpton, P.C. and Wall, B.F. (1992) Assessment of Patient Dose from Computed Tomography. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 43, 205.  
https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/43.1-4.205</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thomas, K.E. and Wang, B. (2008) Age-Specific Effective Doses for Pediatric MSCT Examinations at a Large Children’s Hospital Using DLP Conversion Coefficients: A Simple Estimation Method. Pediatric Radiology, 38, 645-656.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-008-0794-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Deak, P.D., Smal, Y. and Kalender, W.A. (2010) Multisection CT Protocols: Sex- and Age-Specific Conversion Factors Used to Determine Effective Dose from Dose-Length Product. Radiology, 257, 158-166. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100047</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Huda, W., Magill, D. and He, W. (2011) CT Effective Dose Per Length Product Using ICRP Weighting Factors. Medical Physics, 3, 1261-1265.  
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544350</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">http://www.fetaldose.org</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brenner, D.J. and Rainer, K. (2006) Estimating Radiation-Induced Cancer Risks at Very Low Doses: Rationale for Using a Linear No-Threshold Approach. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 44, 253-256.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-006-0029-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Osei, E.K., Darko, J.B., Faulkner, K. and Kotre, C.J. (2003) Software for the Estimation of Foetal Radiation Dose to Patients and Staff in Diagnostic Radiology. Journal of Radiological Protection, 23, 83-194. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/23/2/305</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Osei, E.K. and Darko, J.B. (2013) Foetal Radiation Dose and Risk from Diagnostic Radiology Procedures: A Multinational Study. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2013, Article ID: 318425. https://doi.org/10.5402/2013/318425</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Radiological Protection Board (1993) Statement by the National Radiological Protection Board: Diagnostic Medical Exposures: Advice on Exposure to Ionizing Radiation during Pregnancy. Documents of the NRPB, 4, 1-3.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Radiological Protection Board (1993) Diagnostic Medical Exposures: Exposure to Ionizing Radiation of Pregnant Women: Biological Basis of the Board’s Statement. Documents of the NRPB, 4, 7-14.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Radiological Protection Board (1993) Estimates of Late Radiation Risks to the UK Population. Chapter 6: Irradiation in Utero. Documents of the NRPB, 4, 105-125.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thibaut, C., Marie-Anne, O., Douws, C., Grenier, N. and Chateil, J.F. (2006) Intérêt de la pelvimétrie par MDCT 40 barrettes, réduction de la dose délivrée. Journal de Radiologie, 87, 1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0221-0363(06)87394-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Phexell, E., S&amp;#246;derberg, M. and Bolejko, A. (2018) Estimation of Foetal Radiation Dose in a Comparative Study of Pelvimetry with Conventional Radiography and Different Computer Tomography Methods. International Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy, 5, 243-247. https://doi.org/10.15406/ijrrt.2018.05.00171</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Guide du bon usage des examens d’imagerie médicale (2005).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Slimane, S., Bouchra, A., Oum, K.H. and Abdelmajid, C. (2020) Radiation Exposure during Pelvimetry CT Procedures in Ibn Sina Children’s Hospital of Rabat. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 175, Article ID: 108087.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2018.12.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mpeke-Mokubangele, C., Ngwa-Ebongue, A., Ouogue, F., Bongue, D. and Moifo, B. (2020) Evaluation of Irradiation Doses Delivered to Patients in Computed Tomography Examinations in 10 Radiology Departments in Douala-Cameroon. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 191, 288-295. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa124</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2007) ICRP Publication 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Ottawa.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Doll, R. and Wakeford, R. (1997) Risk of Childhood Cancer from Fetal Irradiation. The British Journal of Radiology, 70, 130-139.  
https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.70.830.9135438</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hanan, H. and Ala’din, A. (1997) Genetic Disorders and Congenital Abnormalities: Strategies for Reducing the Burden in the Region. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 3, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.26719/1997.3.1.123</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stiller, C. (2007) Childhood Cancer in Britain: Incidence, Survival, Mortality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Johnston, W.T., Erdman, F., Newton, R., Steliarova-Faucher, E., Schüz, J. and Roman, E. (2019) Childhood Cancer: Estimating Regional and Global Incidence. Cancer Epidemiology, 71, Article ID: 101662.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2019.101662</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">International Commission on Radiological Protection (2000) ICRP Publication 84.  Pregnancy and Medical Radiation. Ann. ICRP 30 (1), International Commission on Radiological Protection, Ottawa.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120109-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bailey, H.D., Amstrong, B.K., de Klerk, N.H., Fritschi, L., Attia, J., Lockwood, L., et al. (2010) Exposure to Diagnostic Radiological Procedures and the Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 19, 2897-2909. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0542</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>