Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CT dose reduction in practice

  • ALARA-CT
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Greater than 10% of diagnostic imaging studies performed in developed countries are CT examinations. In the United States, as many as 60 million CT studies are performed each year, up to 7 million of which are performed in pediatric patients. In the spirit of the ALARA principle, both adult and pediatric radiologists should strive to decrease pediatric radiation exposure whenever possible. This can be achieved by utilizing imaging studies that do not require the use of ionizing radiation, thus decreasing the number of CT studies performed. If a CT study is indicated, the delivered dose should be optimized to use the lowest possible dose level while still answering the clinical question.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verdun FR, Bochud F, Gudinchet F et al (2008) Quality initiatives* radiation risk: what you should know to tell your patient. Radiographics 28:1807–1816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. New Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W et al (2007) Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 120:677–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Townsend BA, Callahan MJ, Zurakowski D et al (2010) Has pediatric CT at children’s hospitals reached its peak? AJR 194:1194–1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Slovis TL (2002) The ALARA concept in pediatric CT intelligent dose reduction. Pediatr Radiol 32:219–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (2010) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report NCRP 160. NCRPM, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  7. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB (2008) Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 27:1491–1502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA et al (2003) Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 228:352–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilting JE, Zwartkruis A, van Leeuwen MS et al (2001) A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: individualized scan protocols. Eur Radiol 11:2627–2632

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 233:649–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC et al (2010) Image Gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR 194:868–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Primak AN, McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR et al (2006) Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. Radiographics 26:1785–1794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H et al (1999) Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: Simulation studies. Med Phys 26:2235–2247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C (1999) Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: phantom measurements. Med Phys 26:2248–2253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Haaga JR, Miraldi F, MacIntyre W et al (1981) The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. Radiology 138:449–454

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McCollough CH (2005) Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? Radiology 237:755–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li J, Udayasankar UK, Toth TL et al (2007) Automatic patient centering for MDCT: effect on radiation dose. AJR 188:547–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS et al (2001) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR 176:303–330

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim J, Newman B (2010) Evaluation of a radiation dose reduction strategy for pediatric chest CT. AJR 194:1188–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclaimer

The supplement this article is part of is not sponsored by the industry. Dr. Callahan has no financial interest, investigational or off-label uses to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Children’s Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Michael J. Callahan

Authors
  1. Michael J. Callahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Callahan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Callahan, M.J. CT dose reduction in practice. Pediatr Radiol 41 (Suppl 2), 488 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2099-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2099-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation