Strategies for Radiation Dose Optimization

Bettmann MA, Baginski SG, White RD, et al. Acute chest pain—suspected pulmonary embolism. American College of Radiology ACR appropriateness criteria (Update—2011). Radiology. 1995;195:649–54.

Schoepf J, Costello P. CT angiography for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: state of the art. Radiology. 2004;230:329–37.

Mayo J, Thakur Y. CTPA—First line imaging for PE—image quality and radiation dose considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (Submitted).

Mettler F 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 sources—1950–2007. Radiology. 2009;253:520–31.

•• 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; 265:544–54. This article summarizes the current understandings of ways to optimize the benefit-risk ratio of computed tomography (CT) examinations and the prospects of achieving a submillisievert E CT examination routinely are assessed.

Bettmann MA, White RD, Woodard PK, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria(R) acute chest pain—suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thorac Imaging. 2012;27:W28–31.

O’Neill J, Murchison J, Wright L, Williams J. Effect of the introduction of helical CT on radiation dose in the investigation of pulmonary embolism. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:46–50.

National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington: National Academy Press; 2006.

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford. UK: ICRP, Pergamon Press; 1959.

Geleijns J, Wondergem J. X-ray imaging and the skin: radiation biology, patient dosimetry and observed effects. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114:121–5.

International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 2007.

Brenner D, Huda W. Effective dose: a useful concept in diagnostic radiology? Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;128:503–8.

•• Woo J, Chiu R, Thakur Y, Mayo J. Risk-benefit analysis of pulmonary CT angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198:1332–39. The authors of this article conducted a benefit-to-risk ratio analysis of pulmonary CTA in 1,424 consecutive patients with suspected PE and found that benefit-to-risk ratio ranged from 25 to 187. Importantly benefit-to-risk ratio was least for ambulatory females and benefit-to-risk ratio can be increased by optimizing the radiation dose.

Loader R, Gosling O, Roobottom C, Morgan-Hughes G, Rowles N. Practical dosimetry methods for the determination of effective skin and breast dose for a modern CT System, incorporating partial irradiation and prospective cardiac gating. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:237–48.

Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, de Berrington AB. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology. 2009;251:6–12.

Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology. 2009;251:13–22.

Ministry of Health. Radiation protection in radiology—large facilities, Safety Code 35. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2008.

Shope T, Gagne R, Johnson G. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 1981;8:488–95.

Jessen K, Shrimpton P, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G. Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. Appl Radiat Isot. 1999;50:165–72.

Bauhs JA, Vrieze TJ, Primak AN, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH. CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. Radiographics. 2008;28:245–53.

Thakur Y, Bjarnason T, Chakraborty S, et al. Canadian Association of Radiologists Radiation Protection Working Group: review of radiation units and the use of computed tomography dose indicators in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2012. [Epub ahead of print].

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;259:311–6.

Report of AAPM Task Group 111. The future of CT dosimetry. Comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of radiation dose in X-ray computed tomography. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2010.

DeMarco J, Cagnon C, Cody D, et al. Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: effects of difference size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:2583–97.

Myronakis M, Perisinakis K, Tzedakis A, Gourtsoyianni S, Damilakis J. Evaluation of a patient-specific Monte Carlo software for CT dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;133:248–55.

Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR. Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. Radiology. 2008;248:995–1003.

Huda W, Ogden K. Computing effective doses to pediatric patients undergoing body CT examinations. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38:415–23.

Shrimpton P. Assessment of patient dose in CT. Chilton: National Radiation Protective Board; 2004.

Deak P, Smal Y, Kalendar W. Multisection CT Protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology. 2010;257:158–66.

American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examinations. Report of AAPM Task Group 204. 2011.

International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 60. The 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1990. p. 1990.

Mayo J, Aldrich J, Muller N. Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2003;228:15–21.

Brenner D. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology. 2004;231:440–5.

Barrett J, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24:1679–91.

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. 2000;10:391–4.

Kalra M, Rizzo S, Maher M, et al. Chest CT performed with z-axis modulation: scanning protocol and radiation dose. Radiology. 2005;237:303–8.

Vollmar SV, Kalender WA. Reduction of dose to the female breast in thoracic CT: a comparison of standard-protocol, bismuth-shielded, partial and tube-current-modulated CT examinations. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1674.

Duan X, Wang J, Christner J, Leng S, Grant K, McCollough C. Dose reduction to anterior surfaces with organ-based tube-current modulation: evaluation of performance in a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:689–95.

AAPM Position Statement on the Use of Bismuth Shielding for the Purpose of Dose Reduction in CT Scanning. Policy # PP-26-A. 2012.

Mahadevappa M. MDCT physics: the basic—technology, image quality and radiation dose. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Williams; 2009.

Kallen JA, Coughlin BF, O’Loughlin MT, Stein B. Reduced Z-axis coverage multidetector CT angiography for suspected acute pulmonary embolism could decrease dose and maintain diagnostic accuracy. Emerg Radiol. 2010;17:31–5.

Atalay MK, Walle NL, Egglin TK. Prevalence and nature of excluded findings at reduced scan length CT angiography for pulmonary embolism. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:325–32.

Litmanovich D, Boiselle PM, Bankier AA, Kataoka ML, Pianykh O, Raptopoulos V. Dose reduction in computed tomographic angiography of pregnant patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33:961–6.

Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Stratakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N. The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations. Med Phys. 2005;32:1621–9.

Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Karantanas A, Karabekios S, Gourtsoyiannis N. Influence of z overscanning on normalized effective doses calculated for pediatric patients undergoing multidetector CT examinations. Med Phys. 2007;34:1163–75.

Leipsic J, Nguyen G, Brown J, Sin D, Mayo J. A prospective evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1095–9.

Flicek K, Hara A, Silva A, Wu Q, Peter M, Johnson C. Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:126–31.

Singh J, Daftary A. Iodinated contrast media and their adverse reactions. J Nucl Med Technol. 2008;36:69–74.

May M, Wüst W, Brand M, et al. Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:465–70.

Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G, et al. Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2521–6.

Nelson R, Feuerlein S, Boll D. New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:286–92.

Yadava G, Kulkarni S, Rodriguez CZ, Thibault J, Hsieh J. U-A-201B-03: Dose reduction and image quality benefits using model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) technique for computed tomography. Med Phys. 2010;37:3372.

•• Singh S, Kalra M, 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;36:347–53. This article compares pure iterative reconstruction images with those generated by hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in the abdomen and pelvis. The authors found that Model-based iterative reconstruction renders acceptable image quality and diagnostic confidence in 50-mA s abdominal CT images, whereas FBP and ASIR images are associated with suboptimal image quality at this radiation dose level.

Yuan R, Shuman W, Earls J, et al. Reduced iodine load at CT pulmonary angiography with dual-energy monochromatic imaging: comparison with standard CT pulmonary angiography—a prospective randomized trial. Radiology. 2012;262:290–7.

Bamberg F, Marcus R, Sommer W, et al. Diagnostic image quality of a comprehensive high-pitch dual-spiral cardiothoracic CT protocol in patients with undifferentiated acute chest pain. Eur J Radiol. 2010;2010:31.

Sangwaiya M, Kalra M, Sharma A, Halpern E, Shepard J, Digumarthy S. Dual-energy computed tomographic pulmonary angiography: a pilot study to assess the effect on image quality and diagnostic confidence. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010;34:46–51.

Bauer R, Kramer S, Renker M, et al. Dose and image quality at CT pulmonary angiography-comparison of first and second generation dual-energy CT and 64-slice CT. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2139–47.

Kline J, Mitchell A, Kabrhel C, Richman P, Courtney D. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004;2:1247–55.