Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Developing patient-specific dose protocols for a CT scanner and exam using diagnostic reference levels

  • Image Gently ALARA CT summit: How to Use New CT Technologies for Children
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The management of image quality and radiation dose during pediatric CT scanning is dependent on how well one manages the radiographic techniques as a function of the type of exam, type of CT scanner, and patient size. The CT scanner’s display of expected CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) after the projection scan provides the operator with a powerful tool prior to the patient scan to identify and manage appropriate CT techniques, provided the department has established appropriate diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). This paper provides a step-by-step process that allows the development of DRLs as a function of type of exam, of actual patient size and of the individual radiation output of each CT scanner in a department. Abdomen, pelvis, thorax and head scans are addressed. Patient sizes from newborns to large adults are discussed. The method addresses every CT scanner regardless of vendor, model or vintage. We cover adjustments to techniques to manage the impact of iterative reconstruction and provide a method to handle all available voltages other than 120 kV. This level of management of CT techniques is necessary to properly monitor radiation dose and image quality during pediatric CT scans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:289–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2001) Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:297–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS et al (2001) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:303–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Frush DP (2009) Radiation, CT, and children: the simple answer is … it’s complicated. Radiology 252:4–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Frush DP et al (2009) Image Gently vendor summit: working together for better estimates of pediatric radiation dose from CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1169–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Robinson TJ, Robinson JD, Kanal KM (2013) Implementation of the ACR dose index registry at a large academic institution: early experience. J Digit Imaging 26:309–315

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Morin R (2011) TU‐B‐110‐02: ACR dose index registry for comparing CT dose indices. Med Phys 38:3749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF et al (2005) Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology 235:354–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McCollough C (2011) Translating protocols across patient size: babies to bariatric. AAPM 2011 Summit. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, p 45

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fletcher JG (2010) Adjusting kV to reduce dose or improve image quality — how to do it right. AAPM technology assessment institute: summit on CT dose. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, p 62

  11. Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM et al (2011) Rising use of CT in child visits to the emergency department in the United States, 1995–2008. Radiology 259:793–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCollough CH (2013) Standardization versus individualization: how each contributes to managing dose in computed tomography. Health Phys 105:445–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. American College of Radiology (2013) FAQ CT quality control manual. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/Accreditation/CT/CT%20QC%20Manual%20FAQ%2081613%20Final.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2014

  14. McCollough C, Branham T, Herlihy V et al (2006) Radiation doses from the ACR CT accreditation program: review of data since program inception and proposals for new reference values and pass/fail limits. RSNA 92nd Scientific Assembly, Chicago. http://doseoptimization.jacr.org/Content/PDF/McCollough-Diagnostic.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2014

  15. Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD et al (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD, p 30. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_204.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2014

  16. Solomon JB, Christianson O, Samei E (2012) Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. Med Phys 39:6048–6055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Strauss KJ (2014) Dose indices: everybody wants a number. Pediatr Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00247-014-3104-z

  18. Kleinman PL, Strauss KJ, Zurakowski D et al (2010) Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children’s hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1611–1619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. National Center for Health Statistics (2000) 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. Department of Health and Human Services, Hyattsville, MD, p 203

  20. Goske MJ, Strauss KJ, Coombs LP et al (2013) Diagnostic reference ranges for pediatric abdominal CT. Radiology 268:208–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD et al (2011) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 259:565–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Ackman JB et al (2010) Diffuse lung disease: CT of the chest with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology 256:261–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schindera ST, Diedrichsen L, Muller HC et al (2011) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of diagnostic accuracy, image quality and radiation dose in a phantom study. Radiology 260:454–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC et al (2010) Image gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:868–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR (2008) Effect of dose metrics and radiation risk models when optimizing CT x-ray tube voltage. Phys Med Biol 53:4719–4732

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Huda W (2002) Dose and image quality in CT. Pediatr Radiol 32:751–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G (2000) Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 217:430–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lucaya J, Piqueras J, Garcia-Pena P et al (2000) Low-dose high-resolution CT of the chest in children and young adults: dose, cooperation, artifact incidence, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:985–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Crawley MT, Booth A, Wainwright A (2001) A practical approach to the first iteration in the optimization of radiation dose and image quality in CT: estimates of the collective dose savings achieved. Br J Radiol 74:607–614

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Goske MJ, Callahan MJ, Frush DP et al (2012) The image gently campaign: championing radiation protection for children through awareness, educational resources and advocacy. In: Tack D, Kalra MK, Gevernois PA (eds) Radiation dose from multidetector CT, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, p 649

    Google Scholar 

  32. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2014) CT scan protocols. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/CTProtocols. Accessed 9 June 2014

Download references

Conflicts of interest

Keith J. Strauss provides paid consulting services to Philips Healthcare upon request.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, MLC 5031, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3026, USA

    Keith J. Strauss

Authors
  1. Keith J. Strauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith J. Strauss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strauss, K.J. Developing patient-specific dose protocols for a CT scanner and exam using diagnostic reference levels. Pediatr Radiol 44 (Suppl 3), 479–488 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3088-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3088-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation