Advertisement

CT Radiation Dose: Philips Perspective

  • Alain Vlassenbroek
  • Dhruv Mehta
  • Jeffrey Yanof
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

Abstract

Fulfilling the demand for effective diagnostic and therapeutic information has led to a steady increase in the use of computed tomography (CT). With this trend, CT departments strive to scan with the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) principle; however, its practice varies significantly among sites and scanners servicing an ever-widening range of clinical indications and patient populations. Philips strategies for simplifying CT dose management are described. Multiple components of the Philips CT imaging chain have been designed to increase volume imaging speed, dose efficiency, and image quality, thereby enabling opportunities for lower dose scan protocols and helping to achieve doses ALARA. In addition, nine seamlessly integrated protocol-driven and patient-adaptive technologies including DoseRight Automatic Current Selection, DoseRight dose modulation, DoseRight Cardiac, Step & Shoot, IntelliBeam Filters, SmartShape Wedge (bowtie) Filters, Eclipse DoseRight collimator, and iDose4 Iterative Reconstruction Technique are described. These combined technologies automatically use the quantity and quality of radiation where and when needed, leading to image quality improvements and dose reductions. Combining Philips’ dose optimized CT imaging chain with automatic dose optimization tools begins a new era where expanding multi-detector CT will be fueled not only by increasing clinical benefits, but also by easily lowering dose to levels not previously possible for broader patient populations.

Keywords

Image Quality Filter Back Projection Iterative Reconstruction Technique Dose Saving Dose Efficiency 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our colleague Mark Olszewski, from Philips HealthCare CT Product Management, for taking the time to assess this manuscript. His comments were greatly appreciated. We also would like to thank our colleagues Efrat Shefer and Leon de Vries, from Philips CT Clinical Science for their careful reading and corrections to this chapter. All clinical images presented in this chapter are courtesy of Professor E. Coche, from the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (UCL) at Brussels in Belgium.

References

  1. Boll DT, Hoffmann MH, Huber N, Bossert AS, Aschoff AJ, Fleiter TR (2006) Spectral coronary multidetector computed tomography angiography: dual benefit by facilitating plaque characterization and enhancing lumen depiction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30(5):804–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Engel KJ, Herrmann C, Zeitler G (2008) X-ray scattering in single and dual-source CT. Med Phys 35(1):318–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. FDA Public Health Notification: Reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients. November 2001; Available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm062185.htm
  5. Frush DP, Slack CC, Hollingsworth CL, Bisset GS, Donnelly LF, Hsieh J, Lavin-Wensell T, Mayo JR (2002) Computer-Simulated radiation dose reduction for abdominal multidetector CT of pediatric patients. AJR 179:1107–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Frush DP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS (2003) Computed tomography and radiation risks: what pediatric health care providers should know. Pediatrics 112(4):951–957PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuchs VR, Sox HC Jr (2001) Physicians’ views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations. Health Aff 20(5):30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golding SJ, Shrimpton PC (2002) Commentary. Radiation dose in CT: are we meeting the challenge? Br J Radiol 75(889):1–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, Johnson ND, Kaste SC, Morrison G, Strauss KJ, Tuggle N (2008a) The image gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(2):273–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, Johnson ND, Kaste SC, Morrison G, Strauss KJ, Tuggle N (2008b) The image gently campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 38(3):265–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hesse B, Murphy RT, Sigurdsson G et al (2006) Use of tissue doppler imaging to guide tube current modulation in cardiac multidetector computed tomographic angiography. AJC 98(5):603–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joseph PM, Spital RD (1982) The effects of scatter in X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 9(4):464–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230(3):619–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karabulut N, Arıyürek M (2006) Low dose CT: practices and strategies of radiologists in university hospitals. Diagn Interv Radiol 12(1):3–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee CL, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiol 231:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee K, Lee W, Lee J, Lee B, Oh G (2010) Dose reduction and image quality assessment in MDCT using AEC (D-DOm and Z-Dom) and in-plane bismuth shielding. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 141(2):162–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA (2000) CT scanning patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20:353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morgan HT (2002) Image quality improvement and dose reduction in CT pediatric imaging. Medica Mundi 46(3):16–21Google Scholar
  20. Philips Healthcare (2009) The Brilliance iCT and DoseWise strategies, White Paper Google Scholar
  21. Philips Healthcare (2011) iDose4 iterative reconstruction technique, White PaperGoogle Scholar
  22. Radon J (1917) Über die Bestimmung von Funktionen durch Ihre Integralwerte längs gewisser Mannigfaltigkeiten. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Reports on the proceedings of the Saxony Academy of Science) 69:262–277Google Scholar
  23. Technical report (2007) CT Market Summary Report, INV 2007, IMV Medical Information Division, Des Plaines, ILGoogle Scholar
  24. Vogtmeier G, Dorscheid R, Engle K, Lutha R, Mattson R, Harwood B, Appleby M, Randolph B, Klinger J (2008) Two dimensional anti-scatter grid for computed tomography detectors. Proc SPIE 6913:691359-1–11Google Scholar
  25. Whiting BR, Massoumzadeh P, Earl OA, O’Sullivan JA, Snyder DL, Williamson JF (2006) Properties of preprocessed sinogram data in X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 33(9):3290–3303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whiting BR, Massoumzadeh P, Earl OA, O’Sullivan JA, Snyder DL, Williamson JF (2006) Properties of preprocessed sinogram data in X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 33(9):3290–3303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilting JE, Zwartkruis A, van Leeuwen MS, Timmer J, Kamphuis AG, Feldberg M (2001) A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: individualized scan protocols. Eur Radiol 11:2627–2632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Vlassenbroek
    • 1
  • Dhruv Mehta
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Yanof
    • 2
  1. 1.Philips HealthcareBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Philips HealthcareClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations