The radiation exposure from computed tomography (CT) scanning is of increasing public concern. Recently, scanning errors at a large radiology department alleged to have led to radiation overdoses for more than 200 patients, have led to public outrage and a US Food and Drug Adminstration investigation . Media reports have also focused on the fact that medical radiation exposure is on an upward trend, much of it due to increases in CT imaging .
The main concern is that such exposure might lead to an increase in radiation-induced cancers . For example, one study projects a large contribution to cancer formation in women from medical imaging performed between the ages of 35 and 54 years . Despite intensive efforts by many investigators, it has been difficult to determine whether the “relatively low dose” (typically <10 mSv) from medical imaging procedures actually leads to an increase in such cancers. Estimates of the effects of low radiation dose on cancer formation to a large extent are extrapolations from atomic bomb survivor data. The relevance of such data to the risks from medical radiation has been questioned . In addition, the risks of low-dose medical radiation exposure need to be put into context with other risks to which people are exposed as well as to the benefits to be gained from medical imaging in the appropriate clinical setting .
Despite the principle to keep radiation dose As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) , in the past, radiologists have not focused their efforts sufficiently on radiation dose reduction. That attitude is changing. An international effort on radiation dose reduction known as “Image Gently” is underway, primarily aimed at reducing dose to pediatric patients, . Radiation doses are now routinely reported for each exam and are often available on the PACS. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center now includes the per exam radiation dose in patients’ medical records and requires vendors who sell imaging equipment to the National Institutes of Health to provide the data in a way that makes electronic recording feasible .
General strategies for radiation dose reduction include reducing the tube current time product (mAs) for small patients, tube current (mA) modulation (angular modulation that takes into account variation in x-ray attenuation as the tube rotates around the patient; and longitudinal modulation that takes into account the variation in size of the patient from superior to inferior), real-time automatic exposure control and adjustment of kV based on patient size . Specific strategies are necessary for certain CT protocols. For example, it has been long recognized that doses for cardiac CT have been relatively high. Strategies to lower the dose at cardiac CT include the use of prospective electrocardiogram triggering of the scan, dual-source CT, and higher helical pitch . Because dose reduction techniques may adversely affect image quality, research on dose reduction strategies generally assess not just the change in dose, but also the effect on the diagnostic content of the exam.
In this issue of the journal, Guimarães et al report on a technique called “projection space denoising” that enables CT dose reduction . The technique is a noise reduction computer algorithm that is applied to the raw projection data, unlike other noise reduction techniques that operate on the reconstructed CT images. They applied their technique to CT enterography images obtained at 80 kV. They used 80 kV imaging because the iodine signal is dramatically increased by a factor of 1.7 at 80 kV compared to 120 kV. The greater iodine signal enables better diagnosis of abnormal mucosal enhancement. A drawback of low kV scanning is an increase in unacceptable image noise, hence the need for a noise reduction algorithm. The authors assessed sharpness by measuring bowel wall thickness and the maximum CT number gradient across the bowel wall. The processed images had a number of desirable properties including high contrast, less noise and good image sharpness. The results were images that approached the quality of traditional CT enterography exams, but that required only half the radiation dose. Because the main indication for CT enterography is Crohn disease imaging and Crohn patients are typically younger, the technique fulfills the goal to “image gently.”
The study had some limitations. The computer processing was relatively slow, but would benefit from hardware implementation that could enable real time processing. The technique might not work as well in patients with large body habitus. The authors only compared their method to a small number of commercially available methods. The technique was proposed as a general strategy and would require further evaluation to ensure optimal clinical implementation. The authors evaluated only the bowel wall and did not assess quality of depiction of other abdominal organs. The study did not address sensitivity for detecting bowel lesions.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Acknowledgments
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Bogdanich W.: Radiation overdoses point up dangers of CT scans. New York Times 2009; A13
2. CT Brain Perfusion Scans Safety Investigation: Initial Notification. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm186105.htm . Accessed July 28, 2010.
3. Brenner D.J., Hall E.J.: Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: pp. 2277-2284.
4. Mettler F.A., Thomadsen B.R., Bhargavan M., et. al.: Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 2008; 95: pp. 502-507.
5. Hall E.J., Brenner D.J.: Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: pp. 362-378.
6. Berrington de Gonzalez A., Mahesh M., Kim K.P., et. al.: Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: pp. 2071-2077.
7. Brenner D.J., Doll R., Goodhead D.T., 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: pp. 13761-13766.
8. McCollough C.H., Guimaraes L., Fletcher J.G.: In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: pp. 28-39.
9. Hendee W.R., Edwards F.M.: ALARA and an integrated approach to radiation protection. Semin Nucl Med 1986; 16: pp. 142-150.
10. Goske M.J., Applegate K.E., Bell C., et. al.: Image Gently: providing practical educational tools and advocacy to accelerate radiation protection for children worldwide. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2010; 31: pp. 57-63.
11. Sidhu M.K., Goske M.J., Coley B.J., et. al.: Image gently, step lightly: increasing radiation dose awareness in pediatric interventions through an international social marketing campaign. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20: pp. 1115-1119.
12. Neumann R.D., Bluemke D.A.: Tracking radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging devices at the NIH. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: pp. 87-89.
13. McCollough C.H., Primak A.N., Braun N., et. al.: Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47: pp. 27-40.
14. Lehmkuhl L., Gosch D., Nagel H.D., et. al.: Quantification of radiation dose savings in cardiac computed tomography using prospectively triggered mode and ECG pulsing: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: pp. 2116-2125.
15. Xu L., Zhang Z.: Coronary CT angiography with low radiation dose. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 26: pp. 17-25.
16. Guimarães L.S., Fletcher J.G., Yu L., et. al.: Feasibility of dose reduction using novel denoising techniques for low kV (80 kV) CT enterography: optimization and validation. Academic Radiology 2010; in press
17. Prakash P., Kalra M.K., Digumarthy S.R., et. al.: Radiation dose reduction with chest computed tomography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique: initial experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010; 34: pp. 40-45.
18. Silva A.C., Lawder H.J., Hara A., et. al.: Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: pp. 191-199.
19. Kambadakone A.R., Prakash P., Hahn P.F., et. al.: Low-dose CT examinations in Crohn’s disease: impact on image quality, diagnostic performance, and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: pp. 78-88.
20. Allen B.C., Baker M.E., Einstein D.M., et. al.: Effect of altering automatic exposure control settings and quality reference mAs on radiation dose, image quality, and diagnostic efficacy in MDCT enterography of active inflammatory Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: pp. 89-100.
21. Rosenthal D.I., Weilburg J.B., Schultz T., et. al.: Radiology order entry with decision support: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Radiol 2006; 3: pp. 799-806.
22. Vartanians V.M., Sistrom C.L., Weilburg J.B., et. al.: Increasing the appropriateness of outpatient imaging: effects of a barrier to ordering low-yield examinations. Radiology 2010; 255: pp. 842-849.
23. Ho L.M., Yoshizumi T.T., Hurwitz L.M., et. al.: Dual energy versus single energy MDCT: measurement of radiation dose using adult abdominal imaging protocols. Acad Radiol 2009; 16: pp. 1400-1407.
24. Graser A., Johnson T.R., Chandarana H., et. al.: Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: pp. 13-23.