Simulated low-dose computed tomography in oncological patients: A feasibility study

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 302-308

  Yamamura, Jin ^a   Tornquist, Katharina ^a   Buchert, Ralph ^a   Wildberger, Joachim ^b   Nagel, H D ^c   Dichtl, Daniela ^a   Adam, Gerhard ^a   Wedegärtner, Ulrike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RWTH AACHEN   (Germany)

^c PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography; Dose reduction; Oncology

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; QUALITY CONTROL;

'CURRENT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIES; DOSE REDUCTION; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FOLLOW UP; LOW DOSE; MULTISLICE CT; SIEMENS;

PERSONAL COMPUTERS;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ABDOMEN; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; SIMULATION; THORAX; X RAY DOSE DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 77950355104     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181c95b67     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:43-66.
2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71-96.
3. Karim-Kos HE, de Vries E, Soerjomataram I, et al. Recent trends of cancer in Europe: a combined approach of incidence, survival and mortality for 17 cancer sites since the 1990s. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1345-1389.
4. Mettler FA Jr, Wiest PW, Locken JA, et al. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot. 2000;20:353-359.
5. Schmidt T. Radiation protection in the European community and in Germany. Aktuelle Radiol. 1998;8:161-162.
6. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, et al. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology. 2004;231:393-398.
7. Heyer C. Even physicians underestimate the radiation load. The false picture of the CT [in German]. MMW Fortschr Med. 2007;149:17.
8. Heyer CM, Peters S, Lemburg S, et al. Awareness of radiation exposure of thoracic CT scans and conventional radiographs: what do non-radiologists know [in German]? Rofo. 2007;179:261-267.
9. Pierce DA, Sharp GB, Mabuchi K. Joint effects of radiation and smoking on lung cancer risk among Atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2005;163:694-695.
10. Pierce DA, Vaeth M, Shimizu Y. Selection bias in cancer risk estimation from A-bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2007;167:735-741.
11. Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, et al. Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res. 2004;162:377-389.
12. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Saba O, et al. Dose performance of a 64-channel dual-source CT scanner. Radiology. 2007;243: 775-784.
13. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics. 2006;26:503-512.
14. McCollough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys. 1999;26:2223-2230.
15. Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF. Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:297-301.
16. Donnelly LF. Reducing radiation dose associated with pediatric CT by decreasing unnecessary examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:655-657.
17. 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 Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:303-306.
18. Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO. A comparative study of thoracic radiation doses from 64-slice cardiac CT. Br J Radiol. 2007;80: 537-544.
19. Nickoloff EL, Dutta AK, Lu ZF. Influence of phantom diameter, k-p and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. Med Phys. 2003;30:395-402.
20. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, et al. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology. 2003;228:352-360.
21. Dawson P. Patient dose in multislice CT: why is it increasing and does it matter? Br J Radiol. 2004;77(spec No. 1):S10-S13.
22. 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.
23. Diederich S, Wormanns D, Semik M, et al. Screening for early lung cancer with low-dose spiral CT: prevalence in 817 asymptomatic smokers. Radiology. 2002;222:773-781.
24. Henschke CI, Lee IJ, Wu N, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: prevalence and incidence of mediastinal masses. Radiology. 2006;239:586-590.
25. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Smith JP, et al. CT screening for lung cancer. Assessing a regimen's diagnostic performance. Clin Imaging. 2004;28:317-321.
26. Kaneko M, Eguchi K, Ohmatsu H, et al. Peripheral lung cancer: screening and detection with low-dose spiral CT versus radiography. Radiology. 1996;201:798-802.
27. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet. 1999;354:99-105.
28. Sone S, Nakayama T, Honda T, et al. Long-term follow-up study of a population-based 1996-1998 mass screening programme for lung cancer using mobile low-dose spiral computed tomography. Lung Cancer. 2007;58:329-341.
29. Sone S, Li F, Yang ZG, et al. Characteristics of small lung cancers invisible on conventional chest radiography and detected by population based screening using spiral CT. Br J Radiol 2000;73: 137-145.
30. 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. 2000;21:1654-1660.
31. Sohaib SA, Peppercorn PD, Horrocks JA, et al. The effect of decreasing mAs on image quality and patient dose in sinus CT. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:157-161.
32. Stamm G, Nagel HD. CT-ExpoVa novel program for dose evaluation in CT [in German]. Rofo. 2002;174:1570-1576.
33. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:234-245.
34. Vade A, Demos TC, Olson MC, et al. Evaluation of image quality using 1:1 pitch and 1.5:1 pitch helical CT in children: a comparative study. Pediatr Radiol. 1996;26:891-893.
35. 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? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:795-801.
36. Rehani MM, Berry M. Radiation doses in computed tomography. The increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled. BMJ. 2000;320:593-594.
37. Wintermark M, Maeder P, Verdun FR, et al. Using 80 k-p versus 120 k-p in perfusion CT measurement of regional cerebral blood flow. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1881-1884.
38. Diederich S, Lenzen H, Windmann R, et al. Pulmonary nodules: experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. Radiology. 1999;213:289-298.
39. Takahashi M, Maguire WM, Ashtari M, et al. Low-dose spiral computed tomography of the thorax: comparison with the standard-dose technique. Invest Radiol. 1998;33:68-73.
40. Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology. 1998; 209:243-249.
41. Husstedt H, Prokop M, Becker H. Window width as a dosage-relevant factor in high-contrast structures in CT [in German]. Rofo. 1998;168:139-143.
42. Haaga JR, Miraldi F, MacIntyre W, et al. The effect of m-s variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. Radiology. 1981;138:449-454.
43. Haaga JR. Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:289-291.
44. Wendel F, Jenett M, Geib A, et al. Low-dose CT in neutropenic patients with fever of unknown origin [in German]. Rofo. 2005;177: 1424-1429.