Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 1190–1196 | Cite as

Perspectives on radiation dose in abdominal imaging

  • Tessa S. Cook
  • Susan Hilton
  • Nicholas Papanicolaou
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Reported instances of patients’ overexposure to imaging-related radiation have spurred the radiology and medical physics communities to identify and develop methods for decreasing the amount of radiation used to achieve diagnostic-quality images. These initiatives include examining and optimizing conventional CT scanning parameters, introducing innovative scan protocols, and incorporating novel dose reduction technologies. The greatest challenge to effective dose reduction in the abdomen and pelvis remains patient size. Here, we review the state of the art in abdominopelvic CT in both adult and pediatric patients and describe some of our own efforts in dose reduction for these types of examinations.

Keywords

Image Noise Iterative Reconstruction Compute Tomography Colonography Tube Current Modulation Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Coursey C, Frush D (2008) CT and radiation: what radiologists should know. Appl Radiol 37(3):22–29Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rizzo S, Kalra MK, Schmidt B, et al. (2006) Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(3):673–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ciaschini MW, Remer EM, Baker ME, Lieber M, Herts BR (2009) Urinary calculi: radiation dose reduction of 50% and 75% at CT-effect on sensitivity. Radiology 251(1):105–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, D’Souza RV, et al. (2005) Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 235(2):523–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Schleipman AR, Silverman SG (2004) Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology 232:126–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coppenrath E, Meindl T, Herzog P, et al. (2006) Dose reduction in multidetector CT of the urinary tract. Studies in a phantom model. Eur Radiol 16:1982–1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kemper J, Regier M, Bansmann PM, et al. (2007) Multidetector CT urography: experimental analysis of radiation dose reduction in an animal model. Eur Radiol 17:2318–2324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J, et al. (2004) CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction–comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology 232(2):611–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graser A, Johnson TRC, Chandarana H, Macari M (2009) Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 19(1):13–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fletcher JG, Takahashi N, Hartman R, et al. (2009) Dual-energy and dual-source CT: is there a role in the abdomen and pelvis? Radiol Clin N Am 47(1):41–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silva AC, Morse BG, Hara AK, et al. (2011) Dual-energy (spectral) C: applications in abdominal imaging. RadioGraphics 31:1031–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takahashi N, Vrtiska TJ, Kawashima A, et al. (2010) Detectability of urinary stones on virtual nonenhanced images generated at pyelographic-phase dual-energy CT. Radiology 256(1):184–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Frauenfelder T, Schertler T (2007) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the detection of urinary stone disease. Investig Radiol 42(12):823–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yeh BM, Shepherd JA, Wang ZJ, et al. (2009) Dual-energy and low-kVp CT in the abdomen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(1):47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chapman RWG, Williams G, Bydder G, et al. (1980) Computed tomography for determining liver iron content in primary haemochromatosis. Br Med J 280(February):440–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thibault J-B, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J (2007) A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 34(11):4526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, et al. (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257(2):373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghetti C, Ortenzia O, Serreli G (2012) CT iterative reconstruction in image space: a phantom study. Phys Med 28(2):161–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martinsen ACT, Sæther HK, Hol PK, Olsen DR, Skaane P (2012) Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 81(7):1483–1487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalra MK, Woisetschläger M, Dahlström N, et al. (2012) Radiation dose reduction with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36(3):339–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shuman WP, Green DE, Busey JM, et al. (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in liver 64-MDCT: focal lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, and image noise. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(5):1071–1076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, et al. (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(3):764–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, et al. (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Investig Radiol 45:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, et al. (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(3):713–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST, et al. (2010) Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm—initial clinical experience. Radiology 254(1):145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nievelstein RaJ, Van Dam IM, Van der IM, Molen AJ (2010) Multidetector CT in children: current concepts and dose reduction strategies. Pediatr Radiol 40(8):1324–1344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh S, Kalra MK, Shenoy-Bhangle A, et al. (2012) Radiation dose reduction with hybrid iterative reconstruction for petriatric CT. Radiology 263(2):537–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB, et al. (2011) Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. RadioGraphics 31:835–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frush DP, Slack CC, Hollingsworth CL, et al. (2002) Computer-simulated radiation dose reduction for abdominal multidetector CT of pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1107–1113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reid J, Gamberoni J, Dong F, Davros W (2010) Optimization of kVp and mAs for pediatric low-dose simulated abdominal CT: is it best to base parameter selection on object circumference? AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(4):1015–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karmazyn B, Frush DP, Applegate KE, et al. (2009) CT with a computer-simulated dose reduction technique for detection of pediatric nephroureterolithiasis: comparison of standard and reduced radiation doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:143–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Singh S, Kalra MK, Moore MA, et al. (2009) Dose reduction and compliance with pediatric CT protocols adapted to patient size. Radiology 252(1):200–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G (2000) Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 217(2):430–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zarb F, Rainford L, McEntee MF (2010) AP diameter shows the strongest correlation with CTDI and DLP in abdominal and chest CT. Radiat prot Dosim 140(3):266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Toth TL, et al. (2008) Effect of patient size on radiation dose for abdominal MDCT with automatic tube current modulation: phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(2):W100–W105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Lee ER, et al. (2007) Abdominal multislice CT for obese patients: effect on image quality and radiation dose in a phantom study. Acad Radiol 14(4):486–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ding A, Mille MM, Liu T, Caracappa PF, Xu XG (2012) 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 57(9):2441–2459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations (Report #204). College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miller CM, Merkle EM (2007) Practice patterns in imaging of the pregnant patient with abdominal pain: a survey of academic centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1128–1134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi T, Reiman RE, et al. (2006) Radiation dose to the fetus from body MDCT during early gestation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:871–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McCollough CH, Schueler BA, Atwell TD, et al. (2007) Radiaton exposure and pregnancy: when should we be concerned? RadioGraphics 27:909–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen MM, Coakley FV, Kaimal A, Laros RK Jr (2008) Guidelines for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging use during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol 112(2):333–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roth RG, Papanicolaou N, Schmitt JE, Hilton S (2013) Evaluation of an optimized split-bolus CT urography protocol. 38th Annual Eugene P. Pendergrass Symposium (Society of abdominal radiology), Philadelphia, PA, 14 June 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tessa S. Cook
    • 1
  • Susan Hilton
    • 1
  • Nicholas Papanicolaou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations