Radiation exposure in urology: A genitourinary catalogue for diagnostic imaging

Journal of Urology

Volumn 190, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 2117-2123

  Neisius, Andreas ^a,b   Wang, Agnes J ^a   Wang, Chu ^a   Nguyen, Giao ^a   Tsivian, Matvey ^a   Kuntz, Nicholas J ^a   Astroza, Gaston M ^c   Lowry, Carolyn ^a   Toncheva, Greta ^d   Yoshizumi, Terry T ^a   Preminger, Glenn M ^a   Ferrandino, Michael N ^a   Lipkin, Michael E ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

^c PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^d LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computerized tomography; Dose response relationship; Radiation; Risk; Urology

Indexed keywords

METAL OXIDE;

ARTICLE; BLADDER; BONE MARROW; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSIMETER; ESOPHAGUS; FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR; GALLBLADDER; HEART; KIDNEY; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; LARGE INTESTINE; LIVER; LUNG; NEPHROLITHIASIS; PANCREAS; PELVIS; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIOSENSITIVITY; RECTUM; SEMICONDUCTOR; SKIN; SPLEEN; STOMACH; TESTIS; THORACIC SPINE; THORACOLUMBAR SPINE; TRANSVERSE COLON;

EID: 84888642290     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.013     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Schauer DA and Linton OW: NCRP Report No. 160: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposuredare we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 2009;97:1.
2. Mettler FA Jr, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K et al: Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sourcesd1950-2007. Radiology 2009;253:520.
3. Brenner DJ and Hall EJ: Computed tomographye an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277.
4. Berrington De Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP et al: Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071.
5. Wrixon AD: New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prot 2008;28:161.
6. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE et al: American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:272.
7. Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi TT, Goodman PC et al: Effective dose determination using an anthropomorphic phantom and metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor technology for clinical adult body multidetector array computed tomography protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:544.
8. Bencomo JA, Chu C, Tello VM et al: Anthropomorphic breast phantoms for quality assurance and dose verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys; 5:36.
9. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT et al: Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 2008;248:254.
10. Oliveira P M C, Squair PL, Oliveira V L S et al: Validating methodologies for evaluation of patient doses submitted to chest x-ray examinations. In: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7-12, 2009, Munich, Germany. Edited by O Dössel and W Schlegel. Berlin: Springer 2009; vol 25/3, pp 400e2.
11. McCollough CH: CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce. Health Phys 2008;95:508.
12. Christner JA, Kofler JM and McCollough CH: Estimating effective dose for CT using doselength 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;194:881.
13. Shrimpton PC: Assessment of Patient Dose in CT. NRPB-PE/1/2004. Chilton, United Kingdom: National Radiological Protection Board 2004.
14. Shrimpton PC, Lewis MA and Dunn M: Doses from Computed Tomography (CT) Examinations in the UK: 2003 Review. NRPB-W67. Chilton, United Kingdom: National Radiological Protection Board 2005.
15. Cristy M: Active bone marrow distribution as a function of age in humans. Phys Med Biol May; 26:389.
16. Pierce DA and Preston DL: Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 2000;154:178.
17. United States Food and Drug Administration: Radiation-Emitting Products: What Are the Radiation Risks from CT? Available at http://www.fda.gov/radiation- emittingproducts/radiationemittingproductsandprocedures/medical imaging/medicalx-rays/ucm115329.htm. Accessed December 11, 2012.
18. Ferrandino MN, Bagrodia A, Pierre SA et al: Radiation exposure in the acute and short-term management of urolithiasis at 2 academic centers. J Urol 2009;181:668.
19. Groves AM, Owen KE, Courtney HM et al: 16-detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte Carlo simulation. Br J Radiol 2004;77:662.
20. Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Anezinis P et al: Assessment of patient effective radiation dose and associated radiogenic risk from extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Health Phys 2002;83:847.
21. Lipkin ME, Wang AJ, Toncheva G et al: Determination of patient radiation dose during ureteroscopic treatment of urolithiasis using a validated model. J Urol 2012;187:920.
22. Lipkin ME, Mancini JG, Toncheva G et al: Organspecific radiation dose rates and effective dose rates during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2012;26:439.
23. Fahmy NM, Elkoushy MA and Andonian S: Effective radiation exposure in evaluation and follow-up of patients with urolithiasis. Urology 2012;79:43.
24. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al: Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2078.
25. Wang AJ, Goldsmith ZG, Wang C et al: Obesity triples the radiation dose of stone protocol CT. J Urol 2013;189:2142.
26. Jaffe TA, Yoshizumi TT, Toncheva G et al: Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1141.
27. Desai GS, Thabet A, Elias AY et al: Comparative assessment of three image reconstruction techniques for image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing abdominopelvic multidetector CT examinations. Br J Radiol 2013;86:2012-0161.
28. Ding A, Mille MM, Liu T et al: Extension of RPI-adult male and female computational phantoms to obese patients and a Monte Carlo study of the effect on CT imaging dose. Phys Med Biol 2012;57:2441.
29. Liu H, Gu J, Caracappa PF et al: Comparison of two types of adult phantoms in terms of organ doses from diagnostic CT procedures. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:1441.
30. Yoshizumi TT, Goodman PC, Frush DP et al: Validation of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor technology for organ dose assessment during CT: comparison with thermoluminescent dosimetry. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1332.