How do radiographic techniques affect image quality and patient doses in CT?

Seminars in Ultrasound CT and MRI

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 411-422

  Huda, Walter ^a,b   Ravenel, James G ^b   Scalzetti, Ernest M ^b  

^a State University of New York Upstate Medical University: College of Medicine   (United States)

^b MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMEN; ARTICLE; BRAIN; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION PROTECTION; SKULL; STOCHASTIC MODEL; THORAX; X RAY;

EID: 0036817672     PISSN: 08872171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0887-2171(02)90012-0     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Cormack AM: Representation of a function by its line integrals, with some radiological applications. J Appl Phys 34:2722-2727, 1963
2. Hounsfield GN: Computerised transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part I. Description of the system. Br J Radiol 46:1016-1022, 1973
3. Ambrose J: Computerised transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part 2. Clinical application. Br J Radiol 46:1023-1047, 1973
4. Joseph PM: Overview of the history and principles of CT scanning, in Medical CT & Ultrasound: Current technology and applications. Proceedings of the 1995 Summer School. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. College Park, MD 1995, pp 301-310
5. Balfe DM, Ehman RL: The Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Research in CT and MR imaging: 2000 And beyond. Radiology 207:561-564, 1998
6. Huda W: Radiation dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. AJR 167:1487-1488, 1997
7. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR): Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. 2000 Report to the General Assembly. UN: New York, NY, 2000
8. Shrimpton PC, Edyvean S: CT scanner dosimetry. BJR 71:1-3, 1998
9. Dainty JC, Shaw R: Image Science. San Diego, CA, Academic Press, 1974
10. nd Edition. Madison, WI, Medical Physics Publishing, 1990
11. Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al: Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of a single-detector helical CT: Strategies at a large children's hospital. AJR 176:303-306, 2001
12. Judy PF: Evaluating computed tomography image quality, in medical CT & ultrasound: Current technology and applications. Proceedings of the 1995 Summer School. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD. 1995, pp 359-378
13. Huda W, Scalzetti EM: Optimizing image quality in spiral CT. Appl Radiol 29:19-23, 2000
14. Kalendar WA: Computed Tomography. Munich, Germany, Publicis MCD Verlag, 2000
15. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G: Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 217:430-435, 2000
16. Ende JF, Huda W, Ros PR, et al: Image mottle in abdominal CT. Invest Radiol 34:282-286, 1999
17. Wagner LK, Elfel PJ, Geise RA: Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. JVIR 5:71-84, 1994
18. Huda W, Peters K: Radiation induced temporary epilation following a radiological embolization procedure. Radiology 193:642-644, 1994
19. Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, et al: Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: Part 1. Characteristics of radiation injury. AJR 177:3-11; 2001
20. Rothenberg L, Pentlow KS: CT dosimetry and radiation safety, in medical CT & ultrasound: Current technology and applications. Proceedings of the 1995 Summer School. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD. 1995, pp 519-556
21. th Edition. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins 2000
22. Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL, et al: Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, Part 1. Cancer 1950-1990. Radia Res 146:1-27, 1996
23. Pierce DA, Preston DL: Radiation related-cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radia Res 154:178-186, 2000
24. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ: 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. Med Phys 28:2387-2388, 2001
25. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, et al: Estimated risks of radiation induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289-296, 2001
26. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60: 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press, 1991
27. Nagel HD (ed): Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography. European Coordination Committee on the Radiological and Electromedical Industries, 2000
28. Atherton JV, Huda W: Energy imparted and effective dose in computed tomography. Med Phys 23:735-741, 1996
29. Huda W, Chamberlain CC, Rosenbaum AE, et al: Radiation doses to infants and adults undergoing head CT examinations. Med Phys 28:393-399, 2001
30. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Roskopf M: Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations. Med Phys 27:838-844, 2000
31. Ware DE, Huda W, Mergo PJ, et al: Radiation effective doses to patients undergoing abdominal CT examinations. Radiology 210:645-650, 1999
32. Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA, et al: CT scanning: Patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20:353-359, 2000
33. McCullough CH, Zink FE: Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 26:2223-2230, 1999
34. Huda W, Mergo PJ: How will the introduction of multislice CT affect patient doses. Radiological Protection of Patients in Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Radiotherapy. Malaga, Spain. 2001, pp 202-205
35. Mahesh M, Scatarge JC, Cooper J, et al: Dose and pitch relationship for a particular multisclice CT scanner. AJR 177: 1273-1275, 2001
36. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 34: Protection of the Patient in Diagnostic Radiology. Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press, 1982
37. Rehani MM, Berry M: Radiation dose in computed tomography: The increasing doses need to be controlled. BMJ 320:593-594, 2000
38. Rogers LF: Taking care of children; check out the parameters used in helical CT. AJR 176:287, 2001
39. Fishman KE, Jeffrey RB (eds): Spiral CT: Principles, Techniques and Clinical Applications (Ed. 2). Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven 1998
40. Rogalla P, Mutze S, Hamm B: Body CT: State of the Art. Munchen, Germany. W Zuckschewerdt Verlag, 1996
41. Silverman PM (ed): Helical (Spiral) Computed Tomography: A Practical Guide to Clinical Protocols. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven 1998
42. Cohnen M, Fischer H, Hamacher J, et al: CT of the head by use of reduced current and kilovoltage: Relationship between image quality and dose reduction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:1654-1660, 2000
43. Huda W, Chang J, Lieberman KA, et al: Radiation dose and image quality in head CT examinations. Radiology 221(P):160, 2001
44. Sohaib SA, Peppercorn PD, Horrocks JA, et al: The effect of decreasing mAs on image quality and patient dose in sinus CT. BJR 74:157-161, 2001
45. Mayo JR, Hartman TE, Lee KS, et al: CT of the Chest: Minimal tube current required for good image quality with the least radiation dose. AJR 164:603-607, 1995
46. Ravenel JG, Scalzetti EM, Huda W, et al: Radiation exposure and image quality in chest CT examinations. AJR 177:279-284, 2001
47. Takahashi M, Maguire WM, Ashtari M, et al: Low-dose spiral computed tomography of the thorax: Comparison with the standard-dose technique. Invest Radiol 33:68-73, 1998
48. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al: Early lung cancer action project: Overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 354:99-101, 1999
49. Diederich S, Lenzen H, Windmann R, et al: Pulmonary nodules: Experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. Radiology 213:289-298, 1999
50. Hopper KD, Keeton NC, Kasales CJ, et al: Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT. Clinical Imaging 22:54-59, 1998
51. Chapuis L, Rogalla P, Goldberg HI, et al: Helical CT: Influence of pitch on lesion detection in models with low lesion- to- background differences. Radiology 193(P):127, 1994
52. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ. et al: Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: Assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology 215:51-54, 2000
53. Diel J, Perlmutter S, Venkataramanan N, et al: Unenhanced helical CT using increased pitch for suspected renal colic: An effective technique for radiation dose reduction? JCAT 24:795-801, 2000
54. Rubin GD, Napel S: Increased scan pitch for vascular and thoracic spiral CT. Radiology 197:316-317, 1995
55. Springer P, Stöhr B, Giacomuzzi SM, et al: Virtual computed tomography colonoscopy: Artifacts, image quality and radiation dose load in a cadaver study. Eur Radiol 10:183-187, 2000
56. Hara AK, Johnsn CD, Reed JE, et al: Reducing data size and radiation dose for CT colonography. AJR 168:1181-1184, 1997
57. Jurik AG, Jensen LC, Hansen J: Total effective radiation dose from spiral CT and conventional radiography of the pelvis with regard to fracture classification. Acta Radiol 37:651-6544, 1996