Radiation dose at cardiac computed tomography: Facts and fiction

Journal of Thoracic Imaging

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 204-212

  Huda, Walter ^a   Rowlett, W Taylor ^a   Schoepf, U Joseph ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONFERENCE PAPER; DOSIMETRY; HUMAN; IONIZATION CHAMBER; RADIATION ABSORPTION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTION; RADIATION ENERGY; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIATION SAFETY; RADIOCARDIOGRAPHY; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY;

EID: 77956019594     PISSN: 08835993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RTI.0b013e3181cf8058     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (72)

1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 160. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009.
2. McCollough CH, Guimaraes L, Fletcher JG. In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:28-39.
3. Kalender WA. Computed Tomography. Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications. New York, NY: Wiley; 2005.
4. Hsieh J. Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances. Bellingham, WA: SPIE; 2003:230.
5. Bastarrika G, Thilo C, Headden GF, et al. Cardiac CT in the assessment of acute chest pain in the emergency department. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:397-409.
6. Rubinstein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. Usefulness of 64- slice multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic triage of patients with chest pain and negative or nondiagnostic exercise treadmill test result. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:925-929.
7. Linton OW, Mettler FA Jr. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:321-329.
8. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Radiation-Emitting Products Computed Tomography (CT). Available at: http:// www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html. Published 2002. Last updated July 27, 2009. [Accessed October 17, 2009].
9. Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, et al. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25: 900-909.
10. Huda W. Radiation dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1487-1488.
11. McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA Physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT. radiation dose in CT. Radiographics. 2002; 22:1541-1553.
12. Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR. Converting CT dose length product (DLP) to effective dose. Radiology. 2008;248: 995-1003.
13. International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:2-4.
14. National Research Council Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposures to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation NRC. Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 1. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
15. Hall E. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
16. Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 1981;8:488-495.
17. Galanski M, Hidajat N, Maier W, et al. Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography. 4th ed. Hamburg, Germany: COCIR; 2000.
18. Suzuki A, Suzuki MN. Use of a pencil-shaped ionization chamber for measurement of exposure resulting from a computed tomography scan. Med Phys. 1978;5:536-539.
19. Boone JM. The trouble with CTD100. Med Phys. 2007;34: 1364-1371.
20. Leitz W, Axelsson B, Szendro G. Computed tomography dose assessment-a practical approach. Rad Prot Dosimetry. 1995; 57:377-380.
21. ImPACT. impactscan.org. Available at: http://www.impactscan. org/ctdosimetry.htm. Published June 27, 2006. [Accessed October 6, 2009]
22. IEC. Medical Electrical Equipment-Part 2-44: Particular Requirements For the Safety of x-Ray Equipment for Computed Tomography. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60601-2-44 Ed 2 Amendment 1. Geneva: IEC; 2003.
23. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, et al. Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:500.
24. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, McNitt-Gray MF, et al. The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) computed tomography (CT) accreditation program: practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. Med Phys. 2004;31:2423-2442.
25. International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 54. Medical Imaging-The Assessment of Image Quality; 1996.
26. Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with lowdose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology. 2004;231:440-445.
27. The Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging. Image Gently. Available at: http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig/. Published January 22, 2008. [Accessed October 6, 2009]
28. Ogden K, Huda W, Scalzetti EM, et al. Patient size and x-ray transmission in body CT. Health Phys. 2004;86:397-405.
29. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 87. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. Ann ICRP. 2000;30:7.
30. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik GA, et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR. 1999; 16262. ISBN 92-828-7478-8.
31. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, et al. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248:254-263.
32. Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H, et al. Dual-source CT in step-and-shoot mode: noninvasive coronary angiography with low radiation dose. Radiology. 2008;249:71-80.
33. Hsieh J, Londt J, Vass M, et al. Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 2006;33:4236-4248.
34. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, et al. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol. 2006;79: 968-980.
35. Lee C, Williams JL, Bolch WE. The UF series of tomographic computational phantoms of pediatric patients. Med Phys. 2005;32:3537-3548.
36. Huda W, Sandison GA. The use of the effective dose equivalent, HE, as a risk parameter in computed tomography. Br J Radiol. 1986;59:1236-1238.
37. Huda W. Computing effective doses from dose-length product in CT. Radiology. 2008;248:321.
38. Hurwitz LM, Reiman RE, Yoshizumi TT, et al. Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology. 2007;245:742-750.
39. International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication
40. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. Ann ICRP. 2002; 32:3-4.
41. Huda W, Vance A. Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:540-546.
42. Angel E, Yaghmai N, Jude CM, et al. Monte Carlo simulations to assess the effects of tube current modulation on breast dose for multidetector CT. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:497-512.
43. Huda W, Atherton JV, Ware DE, et al. An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. Radiology. 1997;203:417-422.
44. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Roskopf M. Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations. Med Phys. 2000;27:838-844.
45. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 2009; 301:500-507.
46. Wagner LK, Eifel PJ, Geise RA. Potential biological effects of following high x-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Inter Radiol. 1994;5:71-84.
47. UNSCEAR 2000. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. 2000 Report to the General Assembly with Annexes. New York, NY: United Nations; 2000:654.
48. Boone JM, Cooper VN III, Nemzek WR, et al. Monte Carlo assessment of computed tomography dose to tissue adjacent to the scanned volume. Med Phys. 2000;27:2393-2407.
49. Huda W. When a pregnant patient has a suspected pulmonary embolism, what are the typical embryo doses from a chest CT and a ventilation/perfusion study? Pediatr Radiol. 2005;35: 452-453.
50. Wagner LK, Lester RG, Saldana LR. Exposure of the Pregnant Patient to Diagnostic Radiations. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Medical Physics; 1997.
51. Wolbarst AB. Physics of Radiology. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Medical Physics; 2000:376.
52. McCollough CH. Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? Radiology. 2005;237:755-756.
53. McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of effective dose. Med Phys. 2000;27:828-837.
54. Huda W. Medical Radiation Dosimetry. RSNA categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics: from invisible to visible-the science and practice of x-ray imaging and radiation dose optimization. RSNA. 2006:29-39.
55. Kemerink GJ, Frantzen MJ, Oei K, et al. Patient and occupational dose in neurointerventional procedures. Neuroradiology. 2002;44:522-528.
56. Schoepf U, Huda W, Abro J, et al. Realistic risks of radiationinduced cancer in a clinical patient population undergoing cardiac CT. RSNA. 2008.
57. International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication
58. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation cancer risk. Ann ICRP. 2005;35:1-142.
59. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. Br Med J. 2005;331:77.
60. de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363:345-351.
61. Cohen BL. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1137-1143.
62. Cameron JR, Moulder JE. Proposition: radiation hormesis should be elevated to a position of scientific respectability. Med Phys. 1998;25:1407-1410.
63. Sagan LA (Editor). Special Issue on Radiation Hormesis. Health Phys. 1987;52:517-680.
64. Gofman JW, O'Connor E. X-Rays Health Effects of Common Exams. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books; 1985.
65. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:13761-13766.
66. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatality Analysis Reporting System Encyclopedia. Available at: http:// www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ Main/index.aspx. Published July 6, 2009. [Accessed October 8, 2009].
67. Walton A, Broadbent AL. Radiation-induced second malignancies. J Palliat Med. 2008;11:1345-1352.
68. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, et al. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009; 47:27-40.
69. Huda W, Ravenel JG, Scalzetti EM. How do radiographic techniques affect image quality and patient doses in CT? Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2002;23:411-422.
70. Ravenel JG, Scalzetti EM, Huda W, et al. Radiation exposure and image quality in chest CT examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:279-284.
71. Slovis TL. The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? Radiology. 2002;223:5-6.
72. Gerber TC, Kantor B, McCollough CH. Radiation dose and safety in cardiac computed tomography. Cardiol Clin. 2009;27: 665-677.