Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Computed Tomography pp 199–220Cite as

CT Practice Monitoring

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) is a leading advanced imaging modality today. Its use, however, has raised concerns regarding utilization costs, appropriate applications, and the associated potential radiation risks. Programmatic radiation dose reporting software has emerged to monitor radiation exposure towards proper CT imaging. Proper imaging implies both radiation risk and clinical value: current CT practice is highly valuable in caring for illness and injury across all ages. Ensuring the benefit of CT examination requires a combined image quality and dose monitoring program. A poor-quality exam is a disservice to the care of the patient, while an exam with more radiation dose than necessary can undermine its safety. Therefore, proper CT imaging requires a combined image quality and dose monitoring program. Such a program is a required element of value-based practice in CT imaging, providing opportunities for improved individual decision-making as well as for assessing and addressing the aggregate aspects of CT imaging practice to ensure rigorous patient safety and consistent imaging quality. This in turn paves the way towards consistent and high-quality imaging care across the healthcare enterprise.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brenner DJ. Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health. 2010;25(1):63–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sodickson A, Beayens PF, Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Nawfel RD, Hanson R, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology. 2009;251(1):175–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Pyo Kim K, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380(9840):499–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boone JM, Hendee WR, McNitt-Gray MF, Seltzer SE. Radiation exposure from CT scans: how to close our knowledge gaps, monitor and safeguard exposure--proceedings and recommendations of the radiation dose summit, sponsored by NIBIB, February 24–25, 2011. Radiology. 2012;265(2):544–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology. 2004;231(2):440–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Meeson S, Patel R, Golding S. Clinical expansion of CT and radiation dose. In: Tack D, Kalra MK, Gevenois PA, editors. Radiation dose from multidetector CT. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012. p. 21–32.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bogdanich W, McGinty JC. Medicare claims show overuse for CT scanning. The New York Times [internet]. 17th June 2011. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/health/18radiation.html.

  8. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 report to the general assembly with scientific annexes. New York: United Nations; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brenner DJ. Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32(4):228–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. US Food and Drug Administration. White paper: initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. 2010. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199994.htm.

  11. Morin RL, Coombs LP, Chatfield MB. ACR dose index registry. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(4):288–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. The Joint Commission. Radiation risks of diagnostic imaging. The joint commission: sentinel event alert. 2011;47:1–4.. http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/sea_471.pdf

  13. Boone S, Cody D, Mc Collough C, McNitt-Gray M, Toth T. Size specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. AAPM report no. 204. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  14. NCRP 2009 Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States NCRP Report no. 160. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Li X, Samei E, Segars WP, Sturgeon GM, Colsher JG, Frush DP. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk for pediatric chest CT. Radiology. 2011;259(3):862–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Samei E, Tian X, Segars WP, Frush DP. Radiation risk index for pediatric CT: a patient-derived metric. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47(13):1737–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dougeni E, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. A review of patient dose and optimization methods in adult and paediatric CT scanning. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:e665–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Abadi E, Sanders J, Samei E. Patient-specific quantification of image quality: an automated technique for measuring the distribution of organ Hounsfield units in clinical chest CT images. Med Phys. 2017;44(9):4736–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Christianson O, Winslow J, Frush DP, Samei E. Automated technique to measure noise in clinical CT examinations. AJR. 2015;205:W93–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanders J, Hurwitz L, Samei E. Patient-specific quantification of image quality: an automated method for measuring spatial resolution in clinical CT images. Med Phys. 2016;43(10):5330–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ria F, Davis JT, Solomon JB, Wilson JM, Smith TB, Frush DP, et al. Expanding the Concept of Diagnostic Reference Levels to Noise and Dose Reference Levels in CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. ICRP. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging, ICRP Publication 135. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(1).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frush DP, Samei E. CT radiation dose monitoring: current state and new prospects CME. Medscape [internet]. 19th March 2015. Available from http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/839485.

  24. Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:013:0001:0073:IT:PDF

  25. Radiation Control: Health Facilities and Clinics, SB1237, 19 February 2010. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1237_bill_20100929_chaptered.html.

  26. Texas Department of State Health Services. Computed Tomography (CT): Radiation Control Program. Updated 29 Dec 2011. https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/radiation/x-ray/laws-rules.aspx#medical-x-ray.

  27. International Atomic Energy Agency, Radiation Protection of Patients (RPOP) – Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). IAEA; 2017. https://www.iaea.org/resources/rpop/health-professionals/radiology/diagnostic-reference-levels.

  28. Ria F, Wilson JM, Zhang Y, Samei E. Image noise and dose performance across a clinical population: patient size adaptation as a metric of CT performance. Med Phys. 2017;44(6):2141–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Samei E, Järvinen H, Kortesniemi M, Simantirakis G, Goh C, Wallace A, et al. Medical imaging dose optimization from ground up: expert opinion of an international summit. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38:967–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ria F, Bergantin A, Vai A, Bonfanti P, Martinotti AS, Redaelli I, et al. Awareness of medical radiation exposure among patients: a patient survey as a first step for effective communication of ionizing radiation risks. Phys Med. 2017;43:57–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang Y, Samei E, Nair S, Coombs LP, Jackson EF, Sullivan DC. Quantitative performance for ACR CT accreditation images across different vendors, protocols, and institutions: initial report of an ACR-RSNA collaboration. 102th RSNA conference, Nov 27th–Dec 2nd 2016, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Christianson O, Chen JS, Yang Z, et al. An improved index of image quality for task-based performance of CT iterative reconstruction across three commercial implementations. Radiology. 2015;275(3):725–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Christianson O, Li X, Frush DP, Samei E. Automated size-specific CT dose monitoring program: assessing variability in CT dose. Med Phys. 2012;39(11):7131–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ria F, Fu W, Hoye J, Segars WP, Kapadia A, Samei E. Characterization of radiation risk across a clinical CT patient population: comparison across 12 risks metrics. 104th RSNA conference. Nov 25th–30th 2018, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mabotuwana T, Lee MC, Cohen-Solal EV, Chang P. Mapping institution-specific study descriptions to RadLex playbook entries. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27:321–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RLUS. Diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology. 2017;284:120–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology. 2010;256:32–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Use of water equivalent diameter for calculating patient size and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in CT, Report no. 220. Report of the AAPM task group 220. College Park: AAPM; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boon JM, McNitt-Gray MF. CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology. 2011;259(2):311–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tian X, Li X, Segars WP, Frush DP, Paulson EK, Samei E. Dose coefficients in pediatric and adult abdominopelvic CT based on 100 patient models. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(24):8755–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tian X, Li X, Segars WP, Frush DP, Samei E. Prospective estimation of organ dose in CT under tube current modulation. Med Phys. 2015;42(4):1575–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tian X, Samei E. Accurate assessment and prediction of noise in clinical CT images. Med Phys. 2015;43(1):475–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Li X, Samei E, Segars WP, Sturgeon GM, Colsher JG, Toncheva G, et al. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part I. development and validation of a Monte Carlo program. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Li X, Samei E, Segars WP, Sturgeon GM, Colsher JG, Toncheva G, et al. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part II. Application to patients. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):408–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fu W, Sturgeon GM, Agasthya G, Segars WP, Kapadia AJ, Samei E. Breast dose reduction with organ-based, wide-angle tube current modulated CT. J Med Imaging. 2017;4(3):031208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Fu W, Sharma S, Smith TB, Hou R, Abadi E, Vignesh S, et al. Multi-organ segmentation in clinical-computed tomography for patient-specific image quality and dose metrology. Proceedings Volume 10948, Medical Imaging 2019: Physical of Medical Imaging. 2019:1094829.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ding A, Wilson J, Solomon J, Zhang Y, Mann S, Nelson J, Wells J, Samei E. METIS: next-generation performance informatics platform for value-based clinical imaging practice, 104th RSNA conference, 25th–30th Nov 2018, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Imaging Physics Group, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Aiping Ding & Francesco Ria

  2. Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Ehsan Samei

Authors
  1. Aiping Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Ria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ehsan Samei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Samei .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Ehsan Samei

  2. Department of Bioengineering and Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Norbert J. Pelc

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ding, A., Ria, F., Samei, E. (2020). CT Practice Monitoring. In: Samei, E., Pelc, N. (eds) Computed Tomography . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26957-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26957-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26956-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26957-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation