Through the looking glass revisited: The need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT

Radiology

Volumn 265, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 4-8

  Bankier, Alexander A ^a   Kressel, Herbert Y ^a  

^a Radiology Editorial Office   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; BODY MASS; BODY WEIGHT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DOSIMETRY; EDITORIAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NOISE REDUCTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION PROTECTION;

HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION INJURIES; RADIATION PROTECTION; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84866603673     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121145     Document Type: Editorial

References (33)

1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 2011;258(1):243-253.
2. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999;354(9173):99-105. (Pubitemid 29313143)
3. Tack D, Gevenois PA. Body MDCT at 140 kV [letter]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(3):W139-W140.
4. Kalra MK, Naz N, Rizzo SM, Blake MA. Computed tomography radiation dose optimization: scanning protocols and clinical applications of automatic exposure control. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2005;34(5):171-181. (Pubitemid 41200503)
5. Kalra MK, Rizzo SM, Novelline RA. Reducing radiation dose in emergency computed tomography with automatic exposure control techniques. Emerg Radiol 2005;11(5):267-274. (Pubitemid 41073928)
6. Rizzo SM, Kalra MK, Schmidt B. Automatic exposure control techniques for individual dose adaptation. Radiology 2005;235(1):335-336; author reply 336.
7. Bankier AA, Tack D. Dose reduction strategies for thoracic multidetector computed tomography: background, current issues, and recommendations. J Thorac Imaging 2010;25(4):278-288.
8. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR 16262 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000.
9. World Health Organization. Global database on body mass index. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2010.
10. Muhogora WE, Ahmed NA, Beganovic A, et al. Patient doses in CT examinations in 18 countries: initial results from International Atomic Energy Agency projects. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009;136(2):118-126.
11. Tack D. Methods and strategies for radiation dose optimization and reduction in MDCT with special focus on the image quality. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA, eds. Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomography. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007; 99-116.
12. Blankstein R, Okada DR, Mamuya WW. Ultra low radiation dose cardiac CT. Int J Cardiol 2011;149(1):e28-e29.
13. Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, et al. Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30(1):44-50. (Pubitemid 43052297)
14. Yu H, Zhao S, Hoffman EA, Wang G. Ultra-low dose lung CT perfusion regularized by a previous scan. Acad Radiol 2009;16(3):363-373.
15. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 2008;248(1):254-263.
16. Martin CJ. Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 2007;80(956):639-647. (Pubitemid 47517809)
17. McCollough CH, Christner JA, Kofler JM. How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(4):890-896.
18. McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of effective dose. Med Phys 2000;27(5):828-837. (Pubitemid 30349990)
19. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Ann ICRP 1977;1(3).
20. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991;21(1-3):1-201.
21. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37(2-4):1-332.
22. Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(4):881-889.
23. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Roskopf M. Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations. Med Phys 2000;27(5):838-844. (Pubitemid 30349991)
24. Menke J. Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults. Radiology 2005;236(2):565-571. (Pubitemid 41023441)
25. Wang J, Duan X, Christner JA, Leng S, Yu L, McCollough CH. Radiation dose reduction to the breast in thoracic CT: comparison of bismuth shielding, organ-based tube current modulation, and use of a globally decreased tube current. Med Phys 2011;38(11):6084-6092.
26. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. Report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee, January 2008. AAPM Report No. 96. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2008.
27. International Electrotechnical Commission. Particular requirements for the safety of xray equipment for computed tomography. IEC publication No. 60601-2-44. 3rd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2012.
28. 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(9):2423-2442. (Pubitemid 39287856)
29. Huda W, Mettler FA. Volume CT dose index and dose-length product displayed during CT: what good are they? Radiology 2011;258(1):236-242.
30. Bauhs JA, Vrieze TJ, Primak AN, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH. CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. RadioGraphics 2008;28(1):245-253.
31. McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boone JM, McNitt-Gray MF. CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology 2011;259(2):311-316.
32. Boone JM. What parameters are most accurate in predicting appropriate technique factors for CT scanning? Radiology 2005;236(2):377-378. (Pubitemid 41023415)
33. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Size-Specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Task Group 204. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2011.