Advertisement

Radiation Dose

  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Carlos Capuñay
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
Chapter

Abstract

The advantages of computed tomography (CT) are immense and have revolutionized the practice of medicine. Since its birth, the applications of CT have extended to different regions and areas of the body, allowing vast advances in the non invasive diagnosis of numerous diseases. Currently, most of the radiation applied for diagnostic purposes arises from the use of CT, nuclear medicine and fluoroscopy. Furthermore, in the last decade with the oncoming of multislice CT (MSCT), there occurred a sustained increase in the utilization of this modality worldwide, with the consequent rise of the radiation dose in the population. This fact has caught the attention of health authorities, the medical community in general and, specially, of radiologists, becoming a topic of high interest and importance around the globe.

Keywords

Radiation Dose Effective Dose Tube Current Uterine Cavity Compute Tomography Study 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Wiest PW, Locken JA, Heintz PH, et al. CT scanning: a major source of radiation exposure. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2002;23:402–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Applegate KE, Amis Jr ES, Schauer DA, et al. Radiation exposure from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2289–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report No. 160, Marzo de 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De “White Paper: Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging”. En sitio web: http://www.fda.gov.
  6. 6.
    Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res. 2007;168:1–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shimizu Y, Kodama K, Nishi N, et al. Radiation exposure and circulatory disease risk: Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivor data, 1950–2003. BMJ. 2010;340:b5349.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:13761–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler Jr JM. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics. 2006;26:503–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee CH, Goo JM, Ye HJ, et al. Radiation dose modulation techniques in the multidetector CT era: from basics to practice1. Radiographics. 2008;28:1451–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernández JM, Vañó E, Guibelalde E. Patient doses in hysterosalpingography. Br J Radiol. 1996;69(824):751–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Grammatikakis J, et al. Radiogenic risks from hysterosalpingography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(7):1522–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fife IA, Wilson DJ, Lewis CA. Entrance surface and ovarian doses in hysterosalpingography. Br J Radiol. 1994;67(801):860–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papaioannou S, Afnan M, Coomarasamy A, et al. Long term safety of fluoroscopically guided selective salpingography and tubal catheterization. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:370–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gregan AC, Peach D, McHugo JM. Patient dosimetry in hysterosalpingography: a comparative study. Br J Radiol. 1998;71(850):1058–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karande VC, Levrant SG, Pratt DE, et al. What is the radiation exposure to patients during a gynaecoradiologic procedure? Fertil Steril. 1997;67:401–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Baronio M, et al. 64-Row multidetector CT virtual hysterosalpingography. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(1):121–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carrascosa PM, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):661–2; discussion 663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCollough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys. 1999;26:2223–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004;230:619–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilting JE, Zwartkruis A, van Leeuwen MS, et al. A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: individualized scan protocols. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:2627–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kulama E. Scanning protocols for multislice CT scanners. Br J Radiol. 2004;77:S2–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mori S, Endo M, Obata T, et al. Properties of the prototype 256-row (cone beam) CT scanner. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2100–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology. 2004;233:649–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Comparison of z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis. Radiology. 2004;232:347–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    La Rivière PJ. Penalized-likelihood sinogram smoothing for low-dose CT. Med Phys. 2005;32:1676–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 1
  • Carlos Capuñay
    • 1
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
    • 2
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.CEGYRBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations