Size-specific dose estimates for adult patients at CT of the torso

Radiology

Volumn 265, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 841-847

  Christner, Jodie A ^a   Braun, Natalie N ^a   Jacobsen, Megan C ^a   Carter, Rickey E ^a   Kofler, James M ^a   McCollough, Cynthia H ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR POSTERIOR AXIS; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; CT DOSE INDEX; DOSIMETRY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SIZE SPECIFIC DOSE ESTIMATE; STATISTICAL MODEL; VOLUMETRY;

EID: 84870051105     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112365     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C, Madsen M. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. Med Phys 1999;26(11):2235-2247.
2. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230(3):619-628. (Pubitemid 38252854)
3. 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)
4. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. RadioGraphics 2006;26(2):503-512. (Pubitemid 43515321)
5. Rizzo S, Kalra M, Schmidt B, et al. Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(3):673-679. (Pubitemid 46100252)
6. Söderberg M, Gunnarsson M. Automatic exposure control in computed tomography - an evaluation of systems from different manufacturers. Acta Radiol 2010;51(6):625-634.
7. Bauhs JA, Vrieze TJ, Primak AN, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH. CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. RadioGraphics 2008;28(1):245-253.
8. Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 1981;8(4):488-495. (Pubitemid 11122522)
9. McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. RadioGraphics 2002;22(6):1541-1553.
10. 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.
11. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical Electrical Equipment. Part 2-44: Particular requirements for the safety of xray equipment for computed tomography. IEC publication No. 60601-2-44. 3rd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Central Office, 2012.
12. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Standardized methods for measuring diagnostic x-ray exposures. New York, NY: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1990.
13. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography (EUR 16262 EN). Luxembourg: European Commission & The Office For Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000.
14. Valentin J; International Commission on Radiation Protection. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. Ann ICRP 2007;37(1):1-79, iii.
15. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT (Report #96). In: AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2008.
16. 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.
17. Mackinnon JG, White H. Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance-matrix estimators with improved finite-sample properties. J Econom 1985;29(3):305-325.
18. Israel GM, Cicchiello L, Brink J, Huda W. Patient size and radiation exposure in thoracic, pelvic, and abdominal CT examinations performed with automatic exposure control. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(6): 1342-1346.
19. Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Toth TL, et al. Effect of patient size on radiation dose for abdominal MDCT with automatic tube current modulation: phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(2):W100-W105.
20. McCollough C, Yu L. Unintentional errors in CT imaging with use of a constant noise automatic exposure control (AEC) paradigm [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2008.
21. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
22. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AAPM Position Statement on Radiation Risks from Medical Imaging Procedures (Policy No. PP 25-A). http://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=318&type=PP¤t= true. 2011.
23. Health Physics Society. Radiation risk in perspective. Position Statement of the Health Physics Society. PS010-1. McLean, Va: Health Physics Society, 2004.
24. Turner AC, Zhang D, Khatonabadi M, et al. The feasibility of patient size-corrected, scanner-independent organ dose estimates for abdominal CT exams. Med Phys 2011; 38(2):820-829.