Optimization of kilovoltage and tube current-exposure time product based on abdominal circumference: An oval phantom study for pediatric abdominal CT

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 199, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 670-676

  Dong, Frank ^a   Davros, William ^a   Pozzuto, Jessica ^b   Reid, Janet ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Case Western Reserve University   (United States)

Author keywords

Abdominal circumference; Contrast to noise ratio; CT; Dose reduction; Pediatric imaging

Indexed keywords

IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ABDOMINAL SCINTISCANNING; ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; DOSIMETRY; IMAGE NOISE; IMAGE QUALITY; IN VITRO STUDY; KILOVOLTAGE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; NOISE; NOISE REDUCTION; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION MEASUREMENT; TUBE CURRENT EXPOSURE TIME PRODUCT; WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE; X RAY ANALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84865594613     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.6153     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Amis ES, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4:272-284
2. [No authors listed]. Looking back on the millennium in medicine. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:42-49
3. Brenner DJ. Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health 2010; 25:63-68
4. Fayngersh V, Passero M. Estimating radiation risk from computed tomography. Lung 2009; 187:143-148
5. Schauer DA, Linton OW. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology 2009; 253:293-296
6. Rabin RC. With rise in radiation exposure, experts urge caution on tests. The New York Times, June 19, 2007
7. Mozes A. Certain tests in ERs raise cancer risk for some. The Washington Post, May 29, 2008
8. Brenner DJ, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fetal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 2001; 176:289-296
9. National Research Council, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR V. Washington, DC; National Academy Press, 1990
10. National Research Council, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII. Washington, DC; National Academy Press, 2007
11. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, et al. The "Image Gently" campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38:265-269
12. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Frush DP, Butler PF, Morrison G. Image Gently Vendor Summit: working together for better estimates of pediatric radiation dose from CT. AJR 2009; 192:1169-1175
13. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC, et al. Image Gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR 2010; 194:868-873
14. Reid J, Gamberoni J, Dong F, Davros W. Optimization of kVp and mAs for pediatric low-dose simulated abdominal CT: is it best to base parameter selection on object circumference? AJR 2010; 195:1015-1020
15. 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; 30:391-397
16. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton-Gorges SL. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 2003; 228:352-360
17. Fernández JR, Redden DT, Pietrobelli A, Allison DB. Waist circumference percentiles in nationally representative samples of African-American, European-American and Mexican-American children and adolescents. J Pediatr 2004; 145:439-444
18. Frush DP, Soden B, Frush KS, Lowry C. Improved pediatric multidetector body CT using a size-based color-coded format. AJR 2002; 178:721-726
19. Thomas KE, Wang B. Age-specific effective doses for pediatric MSCT examinations at a large children's hospital using DLP conversion coefficients: a simple estimation method. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38:645-656
20. Kleinman PL, Strauss KJ, Zurakowski D, et al. Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children's hospital. AJR 2010; 194:1611-1619
21. Arch ME, Frush DP. Pediatric body MDCT: a 5-year follow-up survey of scanning parameters used by pediatric radiologists. AJR 2008; 191:611-617
22. Kim J-E, Newman B. Evaluation of a radiation dose reduction strategy for pediatric chest CT. AJR 2010; 194:1188-1193
23. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000; 217:430-435
24. Szucs-Farkas Z, Kurmann L, Strautz T, et al. Patient exposure and image quality of low-dose pulmonary computed tomography angiography: comparison of 100- and 80-kVp protocols. Invest Radiol 2008; 43:871-876
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; 15:334-341
26. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, et al. Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 2005; 237:945-951
27. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, et al. Lower tube voltage reduces contrast material and radiation doses on 16-MDCT aortography. AJR 2006; 187:1266 [web];W490-W497
28. Marin D, Nelson RC, Barnhart H, et al. Detection of pancreatic tumors, image quality, and radiation dose during the pancreatic parenchymal phase: effect of a low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current CT technique - preliminary results. Radiology 2010; 256:450-459