Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: Principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls

Radiographics

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 835-848

  Yu, Lifeng ^a   Bruesewitz, Michael R ^a   Thomas, Kristen B ^a   Fletcher, Joel G ^a   Kofler, James M ^a   McCollough, Cynthia H ^a  

^a Mayo Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION PROTECTION;

ARTIFACTS; CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 79958023693     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.313105079     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report No. 160. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements, 2009.
2. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357(22):2277-2284.
3. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007;298(3):317-323.
4. Huda W. Radiation doses and risks in chest computed tomography examinations. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2007;4(4):316-320.
5. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 2009;251(1):6-12.
6. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang CC, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 2009;251(1):13-22.
7. National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. BEIR Report VII. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
8. Huda W, Bushong SC. In x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. Med Phys 2001;28(8): 1543-1545.
9. Frush DP. Strategies of dose reduction. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32(4):293-297.
10. Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J, Roskopf ML. Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. I. Radiation doses. Med Phys 2004;31(3):588-594.
11. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. Med Phys 1999; 26(11):2235-2247.
12. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. Med Phys 1999;26 (11):2248-2253.
13. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004;233(3):649-657.
14. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004; 230(3):619-628.
15. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. RadioGraphics 2006;26 (2):503-512.
16. Papadakis AE, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J. Angular on-line tube current modulation in multidetector CT examinations of children and adults: the influence of different scanning parameters on dose reduction. Med Phys 2007;34(7):2864-2874.
17. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000;217(2):430-435.
18. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton- Gorges SL. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 2003;228(2):352-360.
19. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 2004;233(2):515-522.
20. Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, O'Daniel JC, Wagner LK, Eftekhari F. Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182(4):849-859.
21. Ertl-Wagner BB, Hoffmann RT, Bruning R, et al. Multi-detector row CT angiography of the brain at various kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2004;231(2): 528-535.
22. Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, Chen X, Paul JF. Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 2004;231(1): 169-174.
23. Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, et al. Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 2005;237(3):905-910.
24. Frush DP, Herlong JR. Pediatric thoracic CT angiography. Pediatr Radiol 2005;35(1):11-25.
25. Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P, et al. Aortoiliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2005;15(2):334-341.
26. Holmquist F, Nyman U. Eighty-peak kilovoltage 16-channel multidetector computed tomography and reduced contrast-medium doses tailored to body weight to diagnose pulmonary embolism in azotaemic patients. Eur Radiol 2006;16(5): 1165-1176.
27. Schueller-Weidekamm C, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M. CT angiography of pulmonary arteries to detect pulmonary embolism: improvement of vascular enhancement with low kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2006;241(3): 899-907.
28. Waaijer A, Prokop M, Velthuis BK, Bakker CJ, de Kort GA, van Leeuwen MS. Circle of Willis at CT angiography: dose reduction and image quality-reducing tube voltage and increasing tube current settings. Radiology 2007;242(3):832-839.
29. Kalva SP, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Saini S. Using the K-edge to improve contrast conspicuity and to lower radiation dose with a 16-MDCT: a phantom and human study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30(3): 391-397.
30. Frush DP. Pediatric abdominal CT angiography. Pediatr Radiol 2008;38(Suppl 2):S259-S266.
31. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, et al. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2008;18(9): 1809-1817.
32. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 2009;36(3):993-1007.
33. Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Mukundan S Jr, et al. Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection-phantom study. Radiology 2008;246(1): 125-132.
34. Macari M, Spieler B, Kim D, et al. Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(1):W27-W32.
35. McCollough CH, Guimarães L, Fletcher JG. In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193 (1):28-39.
36. Frush DP. Pediatric dose reduction in computed tomography. Health Phys 2008;95(5):518-527.
37. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(2):289-296.
38. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Public health notification: reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients. Silver Spring, Md: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2001.
39. Arch ME, Frush DP. Pediatric body MDCT: a 5-year follow-up survey of scanning parameters used by pediatric radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(2):611-617.
40. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for diagnostic reference levels in medical x-ray imaging. In: Practice guidelines and technical standards. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2008; 799-804.
41. Yu L, Liu X, Leng S, et al. Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med 2009;1(1):65-84.
42. Toth TL, Cesmelia E, Ikhlefa A, Horiuchib T. Image quality and dose optimization using novel x-ray source filters tailored to patient size. In: Flynn MJ, ed. Medical imaging 2005: Physics of Medical Imaging. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005; 5734: 283-291.
43. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am 2009;47(1):27-40.
44. Singh S, Kalra MK, Moore MA, et al. Dose reduction and compliance with pediatric CT protocols adapted to patient size, clinical indication, and number of prior studies. Radiology 2009;252(1): 200-208.
45. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients. http://www.nist.gov/physlab/data/xraycoef/. Published September 17, 2009. Accessed March 31, 2011.
46. Guimarães LS, Fletcher JG, Harmsen WS, et al. Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. Radiology 2010;257 (3):732-742.
47. McCollough CH. Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? Radiology 2005;237(3): 755-756.
48. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 2010; 37(1):234-243.
49. Mayo JR, Whittall KP, Leung AN, et al. Simulated dose reduction in conventional chest CT: validation study. Radiology 1997;202(2):453-457.
50. van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IW, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology 2002;224(1): 25-33.
51. 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(5):1107-1113.
52. Karmazyn B, Frush DP, Applegate KE, Maxfield C, Cohen MD, Jones RP. CT with a computer-simulated dose reduction technique for detection of pediatric nephroureterolithiasis: comparison of standard and reduced radiation doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(1):143-149.
53. Ciaschini MW, Remer EM, Baker ME, Lieber M, Herts BR. Urinary calculi: radiation dose reduction of 50% and 75% at CT-effect on sensitivity. Radiology 2009;251(1):105-111.
54. Manduca A, Yu L, Trzasko JD, et al. Projection space denoising with bilateral filtering and CT noise modeling for dose reduction in CT. Med Phys 2009; 36(11):4911-4919.
55. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment. Part 2-44: Particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC publication No. 60601-2-44. Ed. 2.1. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2002.
56. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Kamath RS, et al. Sixteendetector row CT of abdomen and pelvis: study for optimization of Z-axis modulation technique performed in 153 patients. Radiology 2004;233(1): 241-249.