Automated low-kilovoltage selection in pediatric computed tomography angiography : Phantom study evaluating effects on radiation dose and image quality

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 48, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 584-589

  Siegel, Marilyn Joy ^a   Ramirez Giraldo, Juan Carlos ^b   Hildebolt, Charles ^a   Bradley, David ^b   Schmidt, Bernhard ^c  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b SIEMENS CORPORATE RESEARCH   (United States)

^c SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

CT kilovoltage; CT pediatrics; CT radiation dose; CT tube current; CTA

Indexed keywords

IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ARTICLE; AUTOMATED TUBE CURRENT MODULATION; AUTOMATED TUBE VOLTAGE SELECTION; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; IMAGE QUALITY; NOISE; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; SIMULATION;

EID: 84880293109     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318289f918     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Brenner DJ. Estimating cancer risks from the pediatric CT: Going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32:228-231.
2. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:297-301.
3. Mettler FA,Wiest PW, Locken JA, et al. CT scanning: Patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot. 2000;20:353-359.
4. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, et al. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: A rational approach. Radiology. 2003;228:352-360.
5. Huda W, Bushong SC. In x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. Med Phys. 2001;28:1543-1545.
6. HudaW, Lieberman KA, Chang J, et al. Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. I. Radiation doses. Med Phys. 2004;31:588-594.
7. McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics. 2002;22:1541-1553.
8. Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD, et al. Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examinations. AAPM Report No. 204. ;1-24.
9. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, et al. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. Med Phys. 1999;26: 2235-2247.
10. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. Med Phys. 1999;26: 2248-2253.
11. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology. 2004;233:649-657.
12. Lell MM, May M, Deak P, et al. High pitch spiral computed tomography: Effect on image quality and radiation dose in pediatric chest computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:64-71.
13. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: Overview of available options. Radiographics. 2006;26: 503-512.
14. Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, et al. Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:849-859.
15. 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;191:611-617.
16. 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;37:905-910.
17. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Med Phys. 2000;217:430-435.
18. Kalva SP, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, et al. 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.
19. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, et al. Application- and patient sizedependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys. 2009;36:993-1007.
20. 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.
21. Nickoloff EL, Dutta AK, Zheng FL. Influence of phantom diameter, kVp, and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. Med Phys. 2003;30: 395-402.
22. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, et al. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: Effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology. 2004;233:515-522.
23. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, et al. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: A general strategy. Med Phys. 2010;37:234-243.
24. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB, et al. Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: Principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2011;31:835-848.
25. Winklehner A, Goetti R, Baumueller S, et al. Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:767-773.
26. Goetti R, Winklehner A, Gordic S, et al. Automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection: Preliminary observations in patients after endovascular aneurysm repair of the abdominal aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199: W380-W385.
27. Lee KH, Lee JM, Moon SK, et al. Attenuation-based automatic tube voltage selection and tube current modulation for dose reduction at contrast-enhanced liver CT. Radiology. 2012;265:437-447.
28. Eller A, May MS, Scharf M, et al. Attenuation-based automatic kilovolt selection in abdominal computed tomography: Effects on radiation exposure and image quality. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:559-565.
29. IEC 61223-2-6. Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departmentsVPart 2-6: Constancy testsVImaging performance of computed tomography x-ray equipment 2006.
30. 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.