Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Volume 36, Issue 4 , Pages 176-184 , July 2007

CT Dose Optimization When Changing to CT Multi-Detector Row Technology

  • Francis R. Verdun, PhD

      Affiliations

    • University Institute for Radiation Physics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Francis R. Verdun, PhD, University Institute for Radiation Physics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Grand-Pré 1, CH-1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
    • ,
  • Daniel Gutierrez, MS

      Affiliations

    • University Institute for Radiation Physics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • ,
  • Pierre Schnyder, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
    • ,
  • Abbas Aroua, PhD

      Affiliations

    • University Institute for Radiation Physics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • ,
  • François Bochud, PhD

      Affiliations

    • University Institute for Radiation Physics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • ,
  • François Gudinchet, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

References 

  1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. In: Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 1993 report to the General Assembly. New York, NY: United Nations; 1993;p. 280–283
  2. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 2000 report to the General Assembly, Annex D: Medical radiation exposures. New York, NY: United Nations; 2000;
  3. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004;230:6192
  4. Hall EJ. Lessons we have learned from our children: Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32:700–706
  5. Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA, et al. CT scanning: Patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot. 2000;20:353–359
  6. Crawley MT, Booth A, Wainwright A. A practical approach to the first iteration in the optimization of radiation dose and image quality in CT: Estimates of the collective dose savings achieved. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:607–614
  7. Brugmans MJ, Buijs WC, Geleijns J, et al. Population exposure to diagnostic use of ionizing radiation in the Netherlands. Health Phys. 2002;82:500–509
  8. Aroua A, Burnand B, Decka I, et al. Nation-wide survey on radiation doses in diagnostic and interventional radiology in Switzerland in 1998. Health Phys. 2002;83:46–55
  9. Aroua A, Vader JP, Valley JF, et al. Exposure of the Swiss population by radiodiagnostics. Rev Health Phys. 2003;2007 (in press)
  10. Ghotbi N, Morishita M, Ohtsuru A, et al. Evidence-based guidelines needed on the use of CT scanning in Japan. Jpn Med Assoc J. 2005;48:451–457
  11. Donnelly LF. Reducing radiation dose associated with pediatric CT by decreasing unnecessary examinations. AJR. 2005;184:655–657
  12. Kalra MK, Naz N, Rizzo SM, et al. Computed tomography radiation dose optimization: Scanning protocols and clinical applications of automatic exposure control. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2005;34:171–181
  13. Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: Strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR. 2001;176:303–306
  14. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, et al. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: A rational approach. Radiology. 2003;228:352–360
  15. Linton OW, Mettler FA. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR. 2003;181:321–329
  16. Frush DP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS. Computed tomography and radiation risks: what pediatric health care providers should know. Pediatrics. 2003;112:951–957
  17. Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, et al. Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR. 2004;182:849–859
  18. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: Overview of available options. Radiographics. 2006;26:503–512
  19. Gray JE. Safety (risk) of diagnostic radiology exposures. In:  Janower ML,  Linton OW editor. Radiation Risk: A Primer. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1996;p. 157
  20. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR. 2001;176:289–296
  21. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, et al. Estimates of the cancer risks from pediatric CT radiation are not merely theoretical: Comment on “Point/counterpoint: In x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. Against the proposition.”. Med Phys. 2001;28:2387–2388
  22. Cohen BL. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR. 2002;179:1137–1143
  23. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: Estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363:345–351
  24. Parry RA, Glaze SA, Archer BR. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents (Typical patient radiation doses in diagnostic radiology). Radiographics. 1999;19:1289–1302
  25. McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT (Radiation dose in CT). Radiographics. 2002;22:1541–1553
  26. Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, Luxembourg. 2000;EUR 16262 EN
  27. Chapple CL, Willis S, Frame J. Effective dose in paediatric computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:107–115
  28. Dalrymple NC, Prasad SR, Freckleton NW, et al. Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): Introduction to the language of three-dimensional imaging with multidetector CT. Radiographics. 2005;25:1409–1428
  29. ImPACT. Available at: http://www.impactscan.org.
  30. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. New York, NY: ICRP Publication 73; 1997;
  31. Schrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, et al. Dose from CT examination in the UK—2003 review (NRPB—W67 Report). Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board; 2005;
  32. Huda W, Bushong SC. In x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. Med Phys. 2001;28:1543–1545
  33. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, et al. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: Effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology. 2004;233:515–522
  34. Ogden K, Huda W, Scalzetti EM, et al. Patient size and x-ray transmission in body CT. Health Phys. 2004;86:397–405
  35. Verdun FR, Lepori D, Monnin P, et al. Management of patient dose and image noise in routine pediatric CT abdominal examinations. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:835–841
  36. Boone JM. nCTDI vs kV and diameter (What parameters are most accurate in predicting appropriate technique factors for CT scanning?). Radiology. 2005;236:377–378
  37. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. New York, NY: ICRP Publication 87; 2002;
  38. Vock P. CT dose reduction in children. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:2330–2340
  39. Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, et al. The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations. Med Phys. 2005;32:1621–1629

PII: S0363-0188(07)00017-5

doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2007.04.001

Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Volume 36, Issue 4 , Pages 176-184 , July 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution