Patient dose in multislice CT: Why is it increasing and does it matter?

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 77, Issue SPEC. ISS., 2004, Pages

  Dawson, P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; GEOMETRY; HYPOTHESIS; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE; REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, RADIATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 11244339737     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/23162044     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in computed tomography, Publication 87. Ann ICRP 2001;30(4).
2. Linton OW, Mettler Jr FA. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on paediatric patients. AJR 2003;181:321-9.
3. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, Report EUR 16262 EN. Brussels: European Commission, 1998.
4. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-44: Particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for computed tomography (2nd edn), Standard IEC 60601-2-44. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2001.
5. National Radiological Protection Board. Protection of the patient in X-ray computed tomography. Doc NRPB 1992; 3(4).
6. Kalender WA. Computed tomography. Munich, Germany: Publicis MCD Verlag, 2000.
7. McCullough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 1999;26:2223-30.
8. Nawa T, Nakagawa T, Kusano S, et al. Lung cancer screening using low-dose spiral CT: results of baseline and 1-year follow-up studies. Chest 2002;122:15-20.
9. Harvey CJ, Renfrew I, Taylor S, et al. Spiral CT pneumocolon: applications, status and limitations. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1612-25.
10. Thomson LEJ, Hachamovitch R. Coronary artery calcium scoring using electron beam computed tomography: where does this test fit into clinical practice? Rev Cardiovasc Med 2002;3:121-8.
11. Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 (Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 1059). London: HMSO, 2000.
12. Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, et al. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: dosimetric aspects, R249. London, UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 1991.
13. Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA, et al. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiat Prot 2000;20:353-9.
14. European Communities. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30th June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposures. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities, 1997.
15. Slovis TL. The ALARA concept in paediatric CT: myth or reality. Radiology 2002;223:5-6.
16. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60. Ann ICRP 1991;21(1-3).
17. Keat N. Real-time CT and CT fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol 2001;74:1088-90.
18. Berrington A, Derby SC, Weiss HA, Doll R. 100 years of observation on British radiologists: mortality from cancer and other causes 1897-1997. Br J Radiol 2001;74:507-19.
19. Cohen BL. Dissociation between lung cancer and a geological outcrop. Health Phys 1988;54:224-5.
20. Cohen BL, Colditz GA. Test of the linear no threshold theory for lung cancer induced by exposure to radon. Environ Res 1994;64:65-89.
21. Littlefield LG, McFee AF, Salomaa SI. Radiation hormesis: its expression in the immune system. Health Phys 1994;52: 579-83.
22. Miller AB, Howe GR, Sherman GJ, Lindsay JP, Jaffe MJ, Dinner PJ, et al. Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosis. N Engl J Med 1989;321: 1285-9.
23. Moustacchi E. DNA repair: consequences on dose-responses. Mutat Res 2000;464:35-40.
24. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Permissible dose from external sources of radiation. Washington DC: US Govt Printing Office, 1954.
25. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Review of the current state of radiation protection philosophy. Washington DC: US Govt Printing Office, 1975.
26. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Evaluation of the linear no-threshold dose-response model for ionising radiation. Washington DC: US Govt Printing Office, 2001.
27. Planel H, Soleilhavoup JP, Tixador R, et al. Influence on cell proliferation of background radiation or exposure to very low chronic gamma radiation. Health Phys 1987;52:571-8.
28. Stewart RD. On the complexity of the DNA damage created by endogenous processes. Radiat Res 1999;152:101-5.
29. Sutherland BM, Bennett PV, Sidorkina O, Laval J. Clustered DNA damages induced in isolated DNA and in human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2000;97:103-8.
30. Tokarskaya ZB, Okladnikova ND, Belayeva ZD, Drozhko EG. Multi-factorial analysis of lung cancer dose - response relationship for workers at the Mayak Nuclear Enterprise. Health Phys 1997;73:899-905.
31. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. United Nations, 2000: 1220.
32. Feinendegen LE, Bond VP, Sondhaus CA, Altman KI. Cellular signal adaptation with damage control at low dose versus the predominance of DNA damage at high doses. C R Acad Sci III 1999;322:245-51.