Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dosimetric evaluation of a 256-slice computed tomography scanner

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluated the effectiveness of patient dose reduction tools on a 256-slice computed tomography scanner (Brilliance iCT, Philips).

Materials and methods

The performance of the Brilliance iCT scanner was described in terms of cumulative dose and dose-normalised contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRD). The efficiency of automatic tube current modulation (Z-Dom and D-Dom), shaping filters (SmartShape and IntelliBeam) and asymmetric collimator (Eclipse) was evaluated using appropriate phantoms.

Results

The scattered radiation contribution from the peripheral regions to the cumulative dose is not negligible. The CNRD is 20 % better compared to a traditional 16-slice scanner, with a dose reduction of 40 %. The application of shaping filters decreases the dose in the peripheral regions. The application of D-Dom and Z-Dom modulations reduces the current–time product (mAs) values by 23 and 18 %, respectively, but they are not yet integrated. The over-ranging effect is not negligible, despite the use of an Eclipse asymmetric collimator.

Conclusions

Brilliance iCT dose reduction tools are efficient, but should be analysed carefully and used correctly.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Compagnone G, Angelini P, Domenichelli S (2012) Radiation dose to the population of the Emilia-Romagna region from medical exposure. Radiol Med 117:312–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mettler FA Jr, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA (2000) CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20(4):353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. NCRP (2009) Report No. 160. On increased average radiation exposure of the US population

  4. Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hiller MC et al (1991) Survey on CT practice in the UK: part 2; dosimetric aspects. Chilton, Oxon, NRPB report R-249

  5. National Research Council (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press

  6. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim K-P et al (2009) Projected cancer risk from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al (2009) Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 169:2078–2086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Philips Healthcare (2009) The Brilliance iCT and DoseWise strategies—simplification of dose management with optimized image quality. White Paper

  9. International Standard IEC 60601-2-43 (2010) Medical Electrical equipment-Part 2-43: Particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for interventional procedures. II edition

  10. IPEM, Report No. 32. Measurement of the performance characteristics of diagnostic X-ray systems used in medicine. Part III: Computed Tomography X-ray Scanners. II edition, 2003

  11. AAPM (2010) Report No. 111. Comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of radiation dose in X-ray computed tomography: report of AAPM Task Group 111: the future of CT dosimetry

  12. Rampado O, Garelli E, Ropolo R (2010) Computed tomography dose measurements with radiochromic films and a flatbed scanner. Med Phys 37:189–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M et al (2009) Application and patient size-dependent optimization of X-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 36:993–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. AAPM (2011) Report No. 204. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in paediatric and adult body ct examinations

  15. European Commission (2000) EUR 16262 EN. European Guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography

  16. Schilham A, van der Molen AF, Prokop M, de Fong HW (2010) Overranging at multi-section CT: an underestimated source of excess radiation exposure. RadioGraphics 30:1057–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. De Denaro M, Bregant P (2011) Dosimetric evaluation of a 320 detector row CT scanner unit. Radiol Oncol 45:64–67

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Perisinakis K, Seimenis I, Tzedakis A et al (2013) The effect of head size/shape, mis-centering, and bow-tie filter on peak patient tissue doses from modern brain perfusion 256-slice CT: how can we minimize the risk for deterministic effects? Med Phys 40:011911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Anna Radice, Claudio Ielasi, Gabriele D’Andrea, Nicoletta Paruccini, Andrea Crespi declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scuola di Specializzazione in Fisica Medica, Università Statale, Milan, Italy

    Anna Radice & Claudio Ielasi

  2. U.O. Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo, Monza, Italy

    Anna Radice, Claudio Ielasi, Nicoletta Paruccini & Andrea Crespi

  3. U.O. Radiodiagnostica, Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo, Monza, Italy

    Gabriele D’Andrea

Authors
  1. Anna Radice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudio Ielasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriele D’Andrea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicoletta Paruccini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Crespi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Crespi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Radice, A., Ielasi, C., D’Andrea, G. et al. Dosimetric evaluation of a 256-slice computed tomography scanner. Radiol med 119, 871–877 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0400-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0400-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation