Optimization of Tube Potential for Radiation Dose Reduction in CT

  • Lifeng Yu
  • Joel G. Fletcher
  • Cynthia H. McCollough
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


Tube potential is an important scanning parameter that should be optimized in clinical CT in order to improve image quality or reduce radiation dose. The main benefit of lower tube potentials is the improved enhancement of contrast materials relative to higher tube potentials. However, there is usually increased image noise at lower tube potentials, especially for larger patient sizes. This tradeoff between contrast enhancement and noise requires that patient size and diagnostic task be carefully considered when selecting the optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction. In addition, CT x-ray tube and generator limitations, scanning speed, and artifacts must also be considered. This chapter describes the basic principles of optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT and provides a summary of recent development on automatic selection of optimal tube potential.


Radiation Dose Reduction Patient Size Iodine Contrast Automatic Exposure Control Tube Potential 
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 work was partially supported by a research grant from Thrasher Research Fund. CHM and JGF have received research support from Siemens Healthcare. The authors would like to thank Ms. Kristina Nunez for her help with manuscript preparation.


  1. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) (2011) In: Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examinations (Task Group 204).Google Scholar
  2. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton-Gorges SL (2003) Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 228:352–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, O’Daniel JC, Wagner LK, Eftekhari F (2004) Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:849–859PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S (2007) Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. Jama 298:317–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ertl-Wagner BB, Hoffmann RT, Bruning R et al (2004) Multi-detector row CT angiography of the brain at various kilovoltage settings. Radiology 231:528–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frush DP (2008) Pediatric abdominal CT angiography. Pediatr Radiol 38(Suppl 2):S259–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frush DP, Herlong JR (2005) Pediatric thoracic CT angiography. Pediatr Radiol 35:11–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y et al (2005) Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 237:905–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C (1999) Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. Med Phys 26:2235–2247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guimaraes LS, Fletcher JG, Harmsen WS et al (2010) Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. Radiology 257:732–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holmquist F, Nyman U (2006) Eighty-peak kilovoltage 16-channel multidetector computed tomography and reduced contrast-medium doses tailored to body weight to diagnose pulmonary embolism in azotaemic patients. Eur Radiol 16:1165–1176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hough D, Yu L, Shiung M et al (2011) The lymphoma follow-up CT: age-appropriate individualization to decrease IV contrast dose or radiation dose. In: 97th Scientific assembly and meeting of the radiological society of North America, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Huda W (2007) Radiation doses and risks in chest computed tomography examinations. Proc Am Thorac Soc 4:316–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G (2000) Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 217:430–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C (1999) Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. Med Phys 26:2248–2253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV (2009) Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of X-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 36:993–1007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004a) Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 233:649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004b) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalva SP, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Saini S (2006) Using the K-edge to improve contrast conspicuity and to lower radiation dose with a 16-MDCT: a phantom and human study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:391–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT et al (2008) Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 18:1809–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li X, Samei E, Segars WP et al (2011) Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part I. development and validation of a Monte Carlo program. Med Phys 38:397–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A (2009) Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 251:6–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macari M, Spieler B, Kim D et al (2010) Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. Am J Roentgenol 194:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCollough CH (2005) Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? Radiology 237:755–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Mukundan S Jr et al (2008) Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection—phantom study. Radiology 246:125–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schueller-Weidekamm C, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M (2006) CT angiography of pulmonary arteries to detect pulmonary embolism: improvement of vascular enhancement with low kilovoltage settings. Radiology 241:899–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C (2004) Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 233:515–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, Chen X, Paul JF (2004) Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 231:169–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang CC, Kaminski JM (2009) The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 251:13–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waaijer A, Prokop M, Velthuis BK, Bakker CJ, de Kort GA, van Leeuwen MS (2007) Circle of Willis at CT angiography: dose reduction and image quality—reducing tube voltage and increasing tube current settings. Radiology 242:832–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P et al (2005) Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 15:334–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH (2010) Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 37:234–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yu L, Fletcher JG, Grant K et al (2011a) Automatic kV selection for radiation dose reduction in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. In: 97th Scientific assembly and meeting of the radiological society of North America, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Yu L, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska T et al (2011b) Automatic kV selection for radiation dose reduction in ct angiography. In: 97th Scientific assembly and meeting of the radiological society of North America, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB, Fletcher JG, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2011c) Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. Radiographics 31:835–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lifeng Yu
    • 1
  • Joel G. Fletcher
    • 1
  • Cynthia H. McCollough
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo Clinic College of MedicineRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations