Computed tomography and radiation: Understanding the issues

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 113-119

  Frush, Donald P ^a   Applegate, Kimberly ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography; Practice of radiology; Radiation exposure

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IONIZING RADIATION; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW;

EID: 84928096038     PISSN: 15461440     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2003.11.012     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. McNitt-Gray M.F. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT: radiation dose in CT. Radiographics. 22:2002;1541-1553
2. Frush D.P. Strategies of dose reduction. Pediatr Radiol. 32:2002;293-297
3. Frush D.P. Pediatric CT practical approach to diminish radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol. 32:(10):2002;714-717
4. Huda W, Ravenal J.G, Scalzetti E.M. How do radiographic techniques affect image quality and patient doses in CT? Semin Ultrasound Comput Tomogr Magn Reson. 23:2002;411-422
5. Berland L.L, Smith J.K. Multidetector-array CT once again, technology creates new opportunities. Radiology. 209:1998;327-329
6. Mettler F.A, Wiest P.W, Locken J.A, et al. CT scanning patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot. 20:2000;353-359
7. Linton O.W, Mettler F.A. National conference on dose reduction in computed tomography, emphasis on pediatrics. Am J Roentgenol. 181:2003;321-329
8. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Medical radiation exposures, annex D [Report to the General Assembly]. 2000;United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, New York
9. U.S. Census Bureau. Home page. 2003;. Accessed: June 27, Available at: http://www.census.gov
10. Arlington Medical Resources, Inc. Home page. 2003;. Accessed June 27, Available at: http://www.amr-data.com
11. Society for Pediatric Radiology and National Cancer Institute. Radiation and pediatric computed tomography a guide for health care providers. 2003;. Accessed July 2, Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/causes/ radiation-risks-pediatric-CT
12. Brenner D.J, Elliston C.D, Hall E.J, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol. 176:2001;289-296
13. Nickoloff E.L, Alderson P.O. Radiation exposure to patients from CT reality, public perception, and policy. Am J Roentgenol. 177:2001;285-287
14. Gofman J.W. X-radiation and gamma radiation comments on their nomination as known human carcinogens for the Eleventh Report on Carcinogens (RoC). 2003;. Accessed July 2, Available at: http://dir.niehs.nih.gov//dirtob/rocpubcom/ 11throc/xradiation/gofman-09-11-01.pdf
15. Huda W, Scalzetti E.M, Roskopf M. Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations. Med Phys. 27:2000;838-844
16. Atherton J.V, Huda W. Energy imparted and effective doses in computed tomography. Med Phys. 23:1996;735-741
17. Ware D.E, Huda W, Mergo P.J, et al. Radiation effective doses to patients undergoing abdominal CT examinations. Radiology. 210:1999;645-650
18. Morgan H.T. Dose reduction for CT pediatric imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 32:2002;724-728
19. Strom D.J, Cameron J.R. Is it useful to assess annual effective doses that are less than 100 mSv? Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 98:2002;239-245
20. Radiology Info. Home page. 2003;. Accessed July 2, Available at: http://www.radiologyinfo.org
21. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Whole body scanning using computed tomography (CT). 2003;. Accessed July 2, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/index.html
22. Greess H, Nömayr A, Wolf H, et al. Dose reduction in CT examination of children by an attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current (CARE dose). Eur Radiol. 12:2002;1571-1576
23. Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol. 10:2000;391-394
24. Thornton F.J, Paulson E.K, Yoshizumi T.T, Frush D.P, Nelson R.C. Single versus multi-detector row CT comparison of radiation doses and dose profile. Acad Radiol. 10:2003;379-385
25. Hamberg L.M, Rhea J.T, Hunter G.J, Thrall J.H. Multi-detector row CT radiation dose characteristics. Radiology. 226:2003;762-772
26. Rydberg J, Liang Y, Teague S.D. Fundamentals of multichannel CT. Radiol Clin North Am. 41:2003;465-474
27. Donnelly L.F, Frush D.P. Pediatric multidetector body CT. Radiol Clin North Am. 41:2003;637-655
28. Cohen R.A, Frush D.P, Donnelly L.F. Data acquisition for pediatric CT angiography problems and solutions. Pediatr Radiol. 30:2000;813-822
29. Ravenel J.G, McAdams H.P. Multiplanar and three-dimensional imaging of the thorax. Radiol Clin North Am. 41:2003;475-489
30. Schoepf U.J, Becker C.R, Hofmann L.K, Yucel E.K. Multidetector-row CT of the heart. Radiol Clin North Am. 41:2003;491-505
31. Rao P.M, Rhea J.T, Novelline R.A, Mostafavi A.A, McCabe C.J. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med. 338:1998;141-146
32. Flum D.R, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger E.P. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA. 286:2001;1748-1753
33. Brand-Zawadski M, Silverman J.M. Cancer risk knowledge may be an assumption. Diagn Imaging. 2002;21-25. May
34. Brant-Zawadzki M. CT screening why do I do it? Am J Roentgenol. 179:2002;319-326
35. Charron M, Lentle B. Is it really this simple? Pediatr Radiol. In press
36. Hall EJ. Yes, for high dose helical CT. Response. Pediatr Radiol. In press
37. Cohen B.C. Cancer risk from low level radiation. Am J Roentgenol. 179:2002;1137-1143
38. Brenner D.J. Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol. 32:2002;228-231
39. Feinendegen L.E, Pollycove M. Biological responses to low dose of ionizing radiation detriment versus hormesis. 1. Dose responses of cells and tissues. J Nucl Med. 42:2001;17N-37N
40. Pollycove M, Feinendegen L.E. Biological responses to low dose of ionizing radiation detriment versus hormesis. 1. Dose responses to organisms. J Nucl Med. 42:2001;26N-37N
41. Berrington A, Darby S.C, Weiss H.A, Doll R. 100 years of observation on British radiologists mortality from cancer and other causes 1897-1997. Br J Radiol. 74:2001;507-519
42. Hall E.J. Lessons we have learned from our children cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Pediatr Radiol. 32:2002;700-706
43. Ron E. Ionizing radiation and cancer risks evidence from epidemiology. Pediatr Radiol. 32:2002;232-237
44. Pierce D.A, Preston D.L. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 154:2000;178-186
45. Pierce D.A, Shimizu Y, Preston D.L, et al. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors Report 12, part 1. Cancer. 1950-1990. Radiat Res. 146:1996;1-27
46. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. FDA public health notification: reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/110201-ct.html
47. Paterson A, Frush D.P, Donnelly L.F. Helical CT of the body are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? Am J Roentgenol. 176:2001;297-301
48. Slovis T.L. Conference on the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concept in pediatric CT intelligent dose reduction. Pediatr Radiol. 32:2002;217-218
49. Berlin L. Potential legal ramifications of whole-body CT screening taking a peek into Pandora' s box. Am J Roentgenol. 180:2003;317-322
50. Frush D.P. Response. Responsible CT. Radiology. 229:2003;289-291
51. Available at: ftp: //ftp.cordis.lu/pub.fp5-euratom/docs/eur1626.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2003
52. National Toxicology Program. National Toxicology Program report on carcinogens: what is under consideration for the 11th RoC? 2003;. Accessed July 2, Available at: http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/newhomeroc/11thconsideration. html
53. NSBRI explores the frontiers of space research. Available at: http://www.rsna.org/publications/rsnanews/may03/nsbri-1.html
54. European Commission. Radiation protection 116 guidelines on education and training in radiation protection for medical exposures. 2003;. Accessed July 2, Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/radprot/116/rp-116-en.pdf
55. Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson J, Smith P.H, Workman A. Application of European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey. Br J Radiol. 73:2000;43-50
56. Wade J.P, Weyman J.L, Goldstone K.E. CT standard protocols are of limited value in assessing actual patient dose. Br J Radiol. 70:1997;1146-1151
57. Tsapaki V, Kottous S, Papadimitriov D. Application of European Commission reference dose levels in CT examinations in Crete, Greece. Br J Radiol. 74:2001;836-840
58. American College of Radiology. ACR accreditation programs. 2003;. Accessed July 2, Available at: http://www.acr.org/dyna/?doc=departments/ stand_accred/accreditation/index.html