Radiation dose consideration in kidney stone CT examinations: integration of iterative reconstruction algorithms with routine clinical practice

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 204, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1055-1063

  Andrabi, Yasir ^a   Pianykh, Oleg ^a   Agrawal, Mukta ^a   Kambadakone, Avinash ^a   Blake, Michael A ^a   Sahani, Dushyant V ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

CT; Dose monitoring; Iterative reconstruction; Kidney stones; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; ATTENUATION; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEPHROLITHIASIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; RADIATION MONITORING; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOFTWARE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84934342959     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13038     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Bartoletti R, Cai T, Mondaini N, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors in urolithiasis. Urol Int 2007; 79(suppl 1):3-7
2. Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Project UDiA: prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 2012; 62:160-165
3. Chu G, Rosenfield AT, Anderson K, Scout L, Smith RC. Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. AJR 1999; 173:417-423
4. Gottlieb RH, La TC, Erturk EN, et al. CT in detecting urinary tract calculi: influence on patient imaging and clinical outcomes. Radiology 2002; 225:441-449
5. Ahmad NA, Ather MH, Rees J. Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Int J Urol 2003; 10:287-292
6. Cullen IM, Cafferty F, Oon SF, et al. Evaluation of suspected renal colic with noncontrast CT in the emergency department: a single institution study. J Endourol 2008; 22:2441-2445
7. Dhar M, Denstedt JD. Imaging in diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of stone patients. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2009; 16:39-47
8. Kambadakone AR, Eisner BH, Catalano OA, Sahani DV. New and evolving concepts in the imaging and management of urolithiasis: urologists' perspective. RadioGraphics 2010; 30:603-623
9. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:2277-2284
10. Mancini JG, Ferrandino MN. The impact of new methods of imaging on radiation dosage delivered to patients. Curr Opin Urol 2010; 20:163-168
11. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology 2012; 265:330-331
12. Astroza GM, Neisius A, Wang AJ, et al. Radiation exposure in the follow-up of patients with urolithiasis comparing digital tomosynthesis, noncontrast CT, standard KUB, and IVU. J Endourol 2013; 27:1187-1191
13. Neisius A, Wang AJ, Wang C, et al. Radiation exposure in urology: a genitourinary catalogue for diagnostic imaging. J Urol 2013; 190:2117-2123
14. Shuryak I, Sachs RK, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks after radiation exposure in middle age. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102:1628-1636
15. Fahmy NM, Elkoushy MA, Andonian S. Effective radiation exposure in evaluation and follow-up of patients with urolithiasis. Urology 2012; 79:43-47
16. Sodickson A. Strategies for reducing radiation exposure from multidetector computed tomography in the acute care setting. Can Assoc Radiol J 2013; 64:119-129
17. Heneghan JP, McGuire KA, Leder RA, DeLong DM, Yoshizumi T, Nelson RC. Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology 2003; 229:575-580
18. Hyams ES, Shah O. Evaluation and follow-up of patients with urinary lithiasis: minimizing radiation exposure. Curr Urol Rep 2010; 11:80-86
19. Kalra MK, Maher MM, D'Souza RV, et al. Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 2005; 235:523-529
20. Karmazyn B, Frush DP, Applegate KE, Maxfield C, Cohen MD, Jones RP. CT with a computer-simulated dose reduction technique for detection of pediatric nephroureterolithiasis: comparison of standard and reduced radiation doses. AJR 2009; 192:143-149
21. Katz DS, Venkataramanan N, Napel S, Sommer FG. Can low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT be used for routine evaluation of suspected renal colic? AJR 2003; 180:313-315
22. Kim BS, Hwang IK, Choi YW, et al. Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study. Acta Radiol 2005; 46:756-763
23. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, Goh RH, Rainbow AJ, Stevenson GW. Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology 2000; 215:51-54
24. Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, Schmidlin FR, Iselin CE, Becker CD. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR 2007; 188:927-933
25. Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR 2003; 180:305-311
26. Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, et al. Does ultralow-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30:44-50
27. Sohn W, Clayman RV, Lee JY, Cohen A, Mucksavage P. Low-dose and standard computed tomography scans yield equivalent stone measurements. Urology 2013; 81:231-234
28. Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med 2012; 28:94-108
29. Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T, et al. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography. Part 1 Technical principles. Eur Radiol 2013; 23:1623-1631
30. Willemink MJ, Leiner T, de Jong PA, et al. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography. Part 2 Initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol 2013; 23:1632-1642
31. Kalra MK, Woisetschläger M, Dahlström N, et al. Radiation dose reduction with Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012; 36:339-346
32. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q. Abdominal CT: comparison of lowdose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR 2010; 195:713-719
33. Kulkarni NM, Uppot RN, Eisner BH, Sahani DV. Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go? Radiology 2012; 265:158-166
34. Singh S, Kalra MK, Do S, et al. Comparison of hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: dose reduction potential in the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012; 36:347-353
35. Noël PB, Renger B, Fiebich M, et al. Does iterative reconstruction lower CT radiation dose: evaluation of 15,000 examinations. PLoS ONE 2013; 8:e81141
36. Desai GS, Uppot RN, Yu EW, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV. Impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose in multidetector CT of large body size adults. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:1631-1640
37. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010; 257:373-383
38. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR 2010; 194:191-199
39. Fuentes-Orrego JM, Hayano K, Kambadakone AR, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Dose-modified 256-MDCT of the abdomen using low tube current and hybrid iterative reconstruction. Acad Radiol 2013; 20:1405-1412
40. Desai GS, Fuentes Orrego JM, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV. Performance of iterative reconstruction and automated tube voltage selection on the image quality and radiation dose in abdominal CT scans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37:897-903
41. Martinsen AC, Sæther HK, Hol PK, Olsen DR, Skaane P. Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:1483-1487
42. Schindera ST, Odedra D, Mercer D, et al. Hybrid iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal CT protocols in obese patients: assessment of image quality, radiation dose, and low-contrast detectability in a phantom. AJR 2014; 202:[web]W146-W152
43. Desai GS, Thabet A, Elias AY, Sahani DV. Comparative assessment of three image reconstruction techniques for image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing abdominopelvic multidetector CT examinations. Br J Radiol 2013; 86:20120161
44. Cook TS, Zimmerman S, Maidment AD, Kim W, Boonn WW. Automated extraction of radiation dose information for CT examinations. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:871-877
45. Rehani MM, Berris T. Radiation exposure tracking: survey of unique patient identification number in 40 countries. AJR 2013; 200:776-779
46. Cook TS, Sundaram A, Boonn WW, Kim W. An interactive RADIANCE toolkit for customizable CT dose monitoring and reporting. J Digit Imaging 2013; 26:663-667
47. Rehani MM, Berris T. Templates and existing elements and models for implementation of patient exposure tracking. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2014; 158:36-42
48. Sodickson A, Warden GI, Farkas CE, et al. Exposing exposure: automated anatomy-specific CT radiation exposure extraction for quality assurance and radiation monitoring. Radiology 2012; 264:397-405
49. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European Guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: European Commission, 2000:EUR 16262
50. Boone JM, Hendee WR, McNitt-Gray MF, Seltzer SE. Radiation exposure from CT scans: how to close our knowledge gaps, monitor and safeguard exposure-proceedings and recommendations of the Radiation Dose Summit, sponsored by NIBIB, February 24-25, 2011. Radiology 2012; 265:544-554
51. Katz SI, Saluja S, Brink JA, Forman HP. Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJR 2006; 186:1120-1124
52. Lukasiewicz A, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs L, et al. Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: a report from the American College of Radiology National Radiology Data Registry. Radiology 2014; 271:445-451
53. American College of Radiology website. National Radiology Data Registry. www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/National-Radiology-Data-Registry/Dose-Index-Registry. Accessed October 25, 2013
54. Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA, et al. Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 2013; 269:511-518
55. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. www.fda.gov/Radiation emitting Products/RadiationSafety/Radiation-DoseReduction/default.htm. Published 2010. Accessed January 7, 2014
56. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF; American College of Radiology. ACR white paper on radiation dose in medicine: three years later. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:865-870
57. Neumann RD, Bluemke DA. Tracking radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging devices at the NIH. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:87-89
58. The Joint Commission website. Sentinel event alert: radiation risks of diagnostic imaging. www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/sea-471.pdf. Published August 24, 2011. Accessed December 17, 2013
59. California State Senate website. SB 1237. http://www.legalinfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb-1201-1250/sb-1237-bill-20100929-chaptered.html. Accessed August 21, 2013
60. Brink JA. Dose tracking and rational examination selection for the medically-exposed population. Health Phys 2014; 106:225-228
61. Brink JA, Morin RL. Size-specific dose estimation for CT: how should it be used and what does it mean? Radiology 2012; 265:666-668
62. Ikuta I, Warden GI, Andriole KP, Khorasani R, Sodickson A. Estimating patient dose from x-ray tube output metrics: automated measurement of patient size from CT images enables large-scale size-specific dose estimates. Radiology 2014; 270:472-480
63. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations: report 204 of the AAPM Task Group 204 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2011: Report 204
64. [No authors listed]. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37:1-332