Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography

Radiology

Volumn 232, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 126-132

  Nawfel, Richard D ^a   Judy, Philip F ^a   Schleipman, A Robert ^a   Silverman, Stuart G ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography (CT), radiation exposure; Dosimetry; Radiations, exposure to patients and personnel; Radiations, measurement; Urography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC UROGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DOSIMETRY; FEMALE; FILM DOSIMETER; HUMAN; MALE; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION HAZARD; RISK ASSESSMENT; THERMOLUMINESCENCE; UROGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PELVIS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; SKIN; THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UROGRAPHY;

EID: 2942755835     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2321030222     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Caoili EM, Korobkin M, Francis IR, et al. Adrenal masses: characterization with combined unenhanced and delayed enhanced CT. Radiology 2002; 222:629-633.
2. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995; 194:789-794.
3. Silverman SG, Lee BY, Seltzer SE, Bloom DA, Corless CL, Adams DF. Small (< or = 3 cm) renal masses: correlation of spiral CT features and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163:597-605.
4. Silverman SG, Pearson GD, Seltzer SE, et al. Small (< or = 3 cm) hyperechoic renal masses: comparison of helical and conventional CT for diagnosing angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:877-881.
5. Cass AS, Vieira J. Comparison of IVP and CT findings in patients with suspected severe renal injury. Urology 1987; 29:484-487.
6. Bosniak MA. The small (< 3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis, and controversies. Radiology 1991; 179:307-317.
7. Amendola MA, Bree RL, Pollack HM, et al. Small renal cell carcinomas: resolving a diagnostic dilemma. Radiology 1988; 166:637-641.
8. Goldstein AS, Sclafani SJ, Kupferstein NH, et al. The diagnostic superiority of computerized tomography. J Trauma 1985; 25:938-946.
9. Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, et al. Detection of renal masses: sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/linear tomography, US, and CT. Radiology 1988; 169: 363-365.
10. McNicholas MM, Raptopoulos VD, Schwartz RK, et al. Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170:1261-1267.
11. McTavish JD, Jinzaki M, Zou KH, Nawfel RD, Silverman SG. Multi-detector row CT urography: comparison of strategies for depicting the normal urinary collecting system. Radiology 2002; 225:783-790.
12. Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception and policy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:285-287.
13. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:289-296.
14. Spielmann AL, Heneghan JP, Lee LJ, Yoshizumi T, Nelson RC. Decreasing the radiation dose for renal stone CT: a feasibility study of single- and multidetector CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:1058-1062.
15. Slovis TL. CT and computed radiography: the pictures are great, but is the radiation dose greater than required? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:39-41.
16. Kalra MK, Prasad S, Saini S, et al. Clinical comparison of standard-dose and 50% reduced-dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 1101-1106.
17. Frush DP, Slack CC, Hollingsworth CL, et al. Computer-simulated radiation dose reduction for abdominal multidetector CT of pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:1107-1113.
18. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Silverman SG, Hooton S, Tuncali K, Adams DF. Patient and personnel exposure during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 2000; 216:180-184.
19. Food and drugs: performance standards for ionizing radiation emitting products-computed tomography (CT) equipment (codified at 21 CFR § 1020.33). Federal Register 481, 1990.
20. American Institute of Physics. Specification and acceptance testing of computed tomography scanners. AAPM report No. 39. New York, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1993; 52-55.
21. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1993.
22. Huda W, Atherton JV, Ware DE, Cumming WA. An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. Radiology 1997; 203:417-422.
23. Ware DE, Huda W, Mergo PJ, Litwiller AL. Radiation effective doses to patients undergoing abdominal CT examination. Radiology 1999; 210:645-650.
24. Gkanatsios NA, Huda W. Computation of energy imparted in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 1997; 24:571-579.
25. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, Goh RH, Rainbow AJ, Stevenson GW. Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology 2000; 215:51-54.
26. McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of effective dose. Med Phys 2000; 27:828-837.
27. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Vrtiska TJ, et al. Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film, computed, and CT scanned projection radiography: applications to CT urography. Radiology 2001; 221: 395-403.
28. Muller M, Heicappell R, Steiner U, Merkle E, Aschoff AJ, Miller K. The average dose-area product at intravenous urography in 205 adults. Br J Radiol 1998; 71:210-212.
29. Yakoumakis E, Tsalafoutas IA, Nikolaou D, Nazos I, Koulentianos E, Proukakis C. Differences in effective dose estimation from dose-area product and entrance surface dose measurements in intravenous urography. Br J Radiol 2001; 74:727-734.
30. Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. Br J Radiol 2002; 75:819-830.