Effect of dose metrics and radiation risk models when optimizing CT x-ray tube voltage

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 53, Issue 17, 2008, Pages 4719-4732

  Huda, W ^a,c   Ogden, K M ^b   Khorasani, M R ^b  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

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

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRON TUBES; IMAGING TECHNIQUES; OPTIMIZATION; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUBES (COMPONENTS); X RAY TUBES;

CONTRAST-TO-NOISE; CT SCANNING; NOISE LEVELS; RANDO PHANTOM; RISK MODELING; SOFT TISSUES; X-RAY TUBE VOLTAGES;

ELECTRIC INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMERS;

ABDOMINAL SCINTISCANNING; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DOSIMETRY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION HAZARD; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; X RAY;

HEAD; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; RISK; SOFTWARE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; X-RAYS;

EID: 51849089106     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/17/017     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bongartz G, Golding S J, Jurik G A, Leonardi M, van Meerten E V P, Geleijns J, Jessen K A, Panzer W, Shrimpton P C and Tosi G 1999 European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography p 96
2. Brenner D J et al 2003 Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 13761-6
3. Bushberg J T, Seibert J A, Leidholdt E M Jr and Boone J M 2001 Essential Physics of Medical Imaging (Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) p 500
4. Buthiau D 2003 Computerized tomography pelvimetry: recent advances Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 31 465-70
5. Chapple C L, Willis S and Frame J 2002 Effective dose in paediatric computed tomography Phys. Med. Biol. 47 107-15
6. Dance D R, Thilander A K, Sandborg M, Skinner C L, Castellano I A and Carlsson G A 2000 Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study Br. J. Radiol. 73 1056-67
7. Ende J F, Huda W, Ros P R and Litwiller A L 1999 Image mottle in abdominal CT Invest. Radiol. 34 282-6
8. Galanski M, Hidajat N, Maier W, Nagel H D and Schmidt T 2000 Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography ed H D Nagel
9. Garnier S, Bertrand P, Chapiron C, Asquier E, Rouleau P and Brunereau L 2004 Low dose helical CT pelvimetry: evaluation of radiation dose and image processing J. Radiol. 85 747-53
10. Gkanatsios N A, Huda W and Peters K R 2002 Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography Med. Phys. 29 1643-50
11. Goodenough D, Borras C and Hendee W R 2000 Standards for image quality and radiation exposure impede the pursuit of optimized quality/dose ratios in radiology Med. Phys. 27 273-5
12. Huda W, Ogden K M, Scalzetti E M, Lavallee R and Samei E 2006 X-ray tube voltage and image quality in adult and pediatric CT SPIE Med. Imaging 61422M-1-11
13. Huda W 2002 Dose and image quality in CT Pediatr. Radiol. 32 709
14. Huda W, Lieberman K A, Chang J and Roskopf M L 2004 Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations: II. Image quality Med. Phys. 31 595-601
15. Huda W, Scalzetti E M and Levin G 2000 Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT Radiology 217 430-5
16. Imanishi Y et al 2005 Radiation-induced temporary hair loss as a radiation damage only occurring in patients who had the combination of MDCT and DSA Eur. Radiol. 15 41-6
17. ImPACT http://www.Impactscan.org/ctdosimetry.Htm - ref-separator -
18. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) Publication 60 1991 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection Ann. ICRP 21 1-201
19. ICRP(International Commission on Radiological Protection) Publication 87 2000 Managing patient dose in computed tomography Ann. ICRP 30 4
20. ICRU (International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements) Report 54 1996 Medical Imaging-The Assessment of Image Quality
21. Judy P F 2003 Multidetector-row CT image quality and radiation dose: imaging the lung Semin. Roentgenol. 38 186-92
22. Kalra M K, Maher M M, Toth T L, Hamberg L M, Blake M A, Shepard J A and Saini S 2004 Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization Radiology 230 619-28
23. Lee C I, Haims A H, Monico E P, Brink J A and Forman H P 2004 Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks Radiology 231 393-8
24. Leitz W K, Mansson L G, Hedberg-Vikstrom B R and Kheddache S 1993 In search of optimum chest radiography techniques Br. J. Radiol. 66 314-21
25. Linton O W and Mettler F A Jr 2003 National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 181 321-9
26. McCollough C H 2005 Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? Radiology 237 755-6
27. McNitt-Gray M F 2002 AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT Radiographics 22 1541-53
28. Mettler F A, Wiest P W, Locken J A and Kelsey C A 2000 CT scanning: patterns of use and dose J. Radiol. Prot. 20 353-9
29. BEIR National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Report VII 2005 Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiations: Time for Reassessment? Washington DC: National Research Council
30. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) Report 126 1997 Uncertainties in fatal cancer risk estimates used in radiation protection Bethesda MD: NCRP
31. Ogden K, Huda W, Scalzetti E M and Roskopf M L 2004 Patient size and x-ray transmission in body CT Health Phys. 86 397-405
32. Rose A 1973 Vison: Human and Electronic (New York-London: Plenum)
33. Sandborg M, McVey G, Dance D R and Alm Carlsson G 2001 Schemes for the optimization of chest radiography using a computer model of the patient and x-ray imaging system Med. Phys. 28 2007-19
34. Shrimpton P C, Jones D G, Hillier M C, Wall B F, Le Heron J C and Faulkner K 1991 NRPB Report 249 Survey of CT Practice in the UK Part 2: Dosimetric Aspects 121
35. Slovis T L 2002 CT and computed radiography: the pictures are great, but is the radiation dose greater than required? Am. J. Roentgenol. 179 39-41
36. Toth T L, Cesmeli E, Ikhlef A and Horiuchi T 2005 Proc. Medical Imaging 2005: Physics of Medical Imaging (Bellingham, WA: SPIE) pp 283-91
37. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) 2000 Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation (New York: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)) p 654
38. Wagner L K, Eifel P J and Geise R A 1994 Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 5 71-84
39. Wagner L K and Huda W 2004 When a pregnant woman with suspected appendicitis is referred for a CT scan, what should a radiologist do to minimize potential radiation risks? Pediatr. Radiol. 34 589-90
40. Wintermark M, Maeder P, Verdun F R, Thiran J P, Valley J F, Schnyder P and Meuli R 2000 Using 80 kVp versus 120 kVp in perfusion CT measurement of regional cerebral blood flow AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 21 1881-4