The Radiologist’s Role in Radiation Exposure during Chest Computed Tomography

  • Peter Vock
  • Ulrike Brehmer
Conference paper


Stochastic somatic and genetic effects of ionising radiation exposure are recognised to be biologically significant. Effective dose is the single best parameter to estimate the biologic impact. Depending on the geographic location, natural population exposure in central Europe is estimated to be around 3 mSv/year and medical exposure 1–1.5 mSv/year (Table 1). More important, the relative contribution of 25–50% [1, 2, 3, 4] of CT to the medical exposure of the population is increasing due both to a still increasing number of studies and a decreasing contribution by non-computed tomography (CT) studies (caused by decreasing frequency and individual dose due to more and more pulsed fluoroscopy). Individual exposure through chest examinations has a wide range between around 0.05 mSv for a single posteroanterior chest radiograph and more than 20 mSv for cardiac intervention (Table 2). CT is characterised by an extraordinary medical usefulness but also a relatively high individual exposure. This fact makes it important both for the medical doctor requesting a study and the radiologist performing it to be aware of the exposure, to check for alternatives without ionising radiation and to reduce exposure during CT studies to the very minimum needed medically.


Effective Dose Chest Compute Tomography Medical Exposure Organ Dose Spiral Scanning 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jung H (1995) Strahlenrisiko: widersprüchliche angaben verunsichern öffentlichkeit und patienten. Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft: Informationen 3Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shrimpton PC, Wall BF (1995) The increasing importance of X-ray computed tomography as a source of medical exposure. Radiat Prot Dosim 57: 413–415Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaul A, Bauer J, Bernhardt D, Nosske D, Veit R (1997) Effective doses to members of the public from the diagnostic application of the ionizing radiation in Germany. Eur Radiol 7: 1127–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dixon A (ed) (1998) RCR Guidelines Working Party, 4th edn. Making the best use of a Department of Clinical Radiology. Royal College of Radiologists, p 14Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lenzen H, Roos N, Diederich S, Meier N (1996) Strahlenexposition bei der niedrigdosiscomputertomographie des thorax. Radiologe 36: 483–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heinz-Peer G, Weninger F, Nowotny R, Herold CJ (1996) Strahlendosis der verschiedenen CT-verfahren in der lungendiagnostik. Radiologe 36: 470–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poletti JL (1996) Patient doses from CT in New Zealand and a simple method for estimating effective dose. Br J Radiol 69: 432–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geleijns J, van Unnik JG, Zoetelief J, Zweers D, Broerse JJ (1994) Comparison of two methods for assessing patient dose from computed tomography. Br J Radiol 67: 360–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones DG, Shrimpton PC (1991) Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 3: normalised organ doses calculated using Monte Carlo techniques (NRPB-R250). National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalender WA, Schmidt B, Zankl M, Schmidt M (1999) A PC program for estimating organ dose and effective dose values in computed tomography. Eur Radiol 9: 555–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mini RL, Vock P, Müry R, Schneeberger PP (1995) Radiation exposure of patients who undergo CT of the trunk. Radiology 195: 557–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wade JP, Weyman JC, Goldstone KE (1997) CT standard protocols are of limited value in assessing actual patient dose. Br J Radiol 70: 1146–1151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rothenberg LN, Pentlow KS (1992) AAPM tutorial: radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 12: 1225–1243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diederich S, Lenzen H, Windmann R, Puskas Z, Yelbuz TM, Henneken S, Klaiber T, Eameri M, Roos N, Peters PE (1999) Pulmonary nodules: experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. Radiology 213 (P): 289–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schöpf UO, Becker CR, Bruening RD, Huber AM, Hong C, Reiser MF (1999) Multidetector-array spiral CT imaging of focal and diffuse lung disease: thin-collimation data acquisition with reconstruction of contiguous and HRCT sections. Radiology 213 (P): 259Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Vock
  • Ulrike Brehmer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations