Screening computed tomography colonography with 256-slice scanning: Should patient radiation burden and associated cancer risk constitute a major concern?

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 47, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 451-456

  Perisinakis, Kostas ^a   Seimenis, Ioannis ^b,c   Tzedakis, Antonis ^d   Papadakis, Antonios E ^d   Kourinou, Kalliopi M ^a   Damilakis, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CRETE   (Greece)

^b Medical Diagnostic Center Ayios Therissos   (Cyprus)

^c DEMOCRITUS UNIVERSITY OF THRACE MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Greece)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF HERAKLION   (Greece)

Author keywords

colorectal cancer; CT colonography; radiation risk; screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSIMETRY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION INDUCED NEOPLASM; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIOSENSITIVITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84863702578     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318250a58c     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Kochanek KD, Xu J, Murphy SL, et al. Deaths: preliminary data for 2009. National vital statistics reports. Vol 59, no 4. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59- 04.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2011.
2. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130-160. (Pubitemid 351830299)
3. McFarland EG, Fletcher JG, Pickhardt P, et al. ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6: 756-772.
4. Laghi A, Iafrate F, Rengo M, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: the role of CT colonography. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:3987-3994.
5. Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology. 2005;129:328-337. (Pubitemid 41002065)
6. Leidenbaum MH, Venema HW, Stoker J. Radiation dose in CT colonographytrends in time and differences between daily practice and screening protocols. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2222-2230.
7. Hirofuji Y, Aoyama T, Koyama S, et al. Evaluation of patient dose for barium enemas and CT colonography in Japan. Br J Radiol. 2009;82:219-227.
8. Becker HC, Augart D, Karpitschka M, et al. Radiation exposure and image quality of normal computed tomography brain images acquired with automated and organ-based tube current modulation multiband filtering and iterative reconstruction. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:202-207.
9. Cho ES, Chung TS, Kun Oh D, et al. Cerebral computed tomography angiography using a low tube voltage (80 kVp) and a moderate concentration of iodine contrast material: a quantitative and qualitative comparison with conventional computed tomography angiography. Invest Radiol. 2012;47: 142-147.
10. Ketelsen D, Buchgeister M, Fenchel M, et al. Automated computed tomography dose-saving algorithm to protect radiosensitive tissues: estimation of radiation exposure and image quality considerations. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:148-152.
11. Coakley FV, Gould R, Yeh BM, et al. CT radiation dose: what can you do right now in your practice? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:619-625.
12. Winklehner A, Goetti R, Baumueller S, et al. Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography: improved dose effectiveness. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:767-773.
13. Papadakis AE, Perisinakis K, Oikonomou I, et al. Automatic exposure control in pediatric and adult computed tomography examinations: can we estimate organ and effective dose from mean MAS reduction? Invest Radiol. 2011;46: 654-662.
14. May MS, Wust W, Brand M, et al. Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:465-470.
15. Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, et al. Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:126-131.
16. Brix G, Lechel U, Petersheim M, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT studies: balancing patient exposure and image noise. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:64-70.
17. Martin CJ. Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposure? Br J Radiol. 2007;80:639-647. (Pubitemid 47517809)
18. Brenner DJ. Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:521-523. (Pubitemid 351957735)
19. Committee to Assess Health Risks From Exposure to Low levels of Ionizing Radiation; Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies. Health Risks From Exposure to low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 2006.
20. ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:2-4.
21. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The measurement, Reporting and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. AAPM report 96, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Report of the AAPM Task Group 23. College Park, MA: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2008.
22. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359: 1207-1217.
23. Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, et al. The effect of z-overscanning on patient effective dose from multi-detector spiral computed tomography examinations. Med Phys. 2005;32:1621-1629. (Pubitemid 40880556)
24. Deak PD, Langner O, Lell M, et al. Effects of adaptive section collimation on patient radiation dose in multisection spiral CT. Radiology. 2009;252: 140-147.
25. Aldrich JE, Chang SD, Bilawich AM, et al. Radiation dose in abdominal computed tomography: the role of patient size and the selection of tube current. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2006;57:152-158. (Pubitemid 44033333)
26. Deak P, van Straten M, Shrimpton PC, et al. Validation of a Monte Carlo tool for patient-specific dose simulations in multi-slice computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:759-772.
27. Myronakis M, Perisinakis K, Tzedakis A, et al. Evaluation of a patientspecific Monte Carlo software for CT dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009; 133:248-255.
28. van Straten M, Deak P, Shrimpton PC, et al. The effect of angular and longitudinal tube current modulations on the estimation of organ and effective doses in X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 2009;36:4881-4889.
29. Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Tzedakis A, et al. Radiation dose to the conceptus from multidetector CT during early gestation: a method that allows for variation in maternal body size and conceptus position. Radiology. 2010;257:483-489.
30. Perisinakis K, Seimenis I, Tzedakis A, et al. Individualized assessment of radiation dose in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography with 256-slice scanning. Circulation. 2010;122:2394-2402.
31. Perisinakis K, Seimenis I, Tzedakis A, et al. Triple-rule-out computed tomography angiography with 256-slice computed tomography scanners: patient-specific assessment of radiation burden and associated cancer risk. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:109-115.
32. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA. Multisection CT protocols: sex-and agespecific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology. 2010;257:158-166.
33. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2007. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted on the SEER Web site, 2010. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/ 1975-2007/. Accessed March 29, 2011.
34. Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood test for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut. 2009;58:241-248.
35. Van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IW, et al. CT colonography at different radiation levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology. 2002;224:25-33. (Pubitemid 34680371)
36. Pox CP, Schmiegel W. Role of CT colonography in colorectal cancer screening: risks and benefits. Gut. 2010;59:692-700.
37. Brenner DJ, Shuryak I, Einstein AJ. Impact of reduced patient life expectancy on potential cancer risks from radiologic imaging. Radiology. 2011;261: 193-198.
38. de González AB, Kim KP, Knudsen AB, et al. Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:816-823.
39. US Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0008.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2011.
40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorectal cancer screening rates. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/screening-rates.htm. Accessed September 21, 2011.
41. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer. 2007;109:2213-2221. (Pubitemid 46801550)
42. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, et al. CT colonography to screen for colorectal cancer and aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population: cost-effectiveness analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1332-1340.