OJMI  Vol.3 No.4 , December 2013
Reduction of the Radiation Dose by Decreasing the Tube Current without Degradation of Low-Contrast Detectability on Abdominal Multi-Detector Row CT: A Phantom-Based Study
ABSTRACT

As use of the lowest acceptable radiation dose during routine diagnostic imaging is important, we determined the optimal tube current without degradation of low-contrast detectability on abdominal multi-detector row CT (MDCT). CT scanning was performed with a Catphan® 500 phantom. The optimal tube current was 300 mA on 64-MDCT and 160 mA on 8-MDCT, with a fixed voltage of 120 kV. Reduction of the radiation dose in abdominal CT scanning by lowering the tube current proved to be feasible.


Cite this paper
M. Hu, X. Zhao, J. Song and C. Zhou, "Reduction of the Radiation Dose by Decreasing the Tube Current without Degradation of Low-Contrast Detectability on Abdominal Multi-Detector Row CT: A Phantom-Based Study," Open Journal of Medical Imaging, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2013, pp. 110-115. doi: 10.4236/ojmi.2013.34018.
References
[1]   W. Kalender, “Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications,” Pub- licis MCD Verlag, Munich, 2000.

[2]   UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, “Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes,” Vol. I, UNSCEAR, New York, 2010.

[3]   National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States,” Report No. 160. NCRP, Bethesda, 2009.

[4]   S. T. Schindera, R. C. Nelson, T. L. Toth, G. T. Nguyen, G. I. Toncheva, D. M. DeLong and T. T. Yoshizumi, “Effect of Patient Size on Radiation Dose for Abdominal MDCT with Automatic Tube Current Modulation: Phantom Study,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 190, No. 2, 2008, pp. W100-W105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2891

[5]   M. J. Siegel, B. Schmidt, D. Bradley, C. Suess and C. Hildebolt, “Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Pediatric CT: Effect of Technical Factors and Phantom Size and Shape,” Radiology, Vol. 233, No. 2, 2004, pp. 515-522.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2332032107

[6]   Y. Nakayama, K. Awai, Y. Funama, M. Hatemura, M. Imuta, T. Nakaura, D. Ryu, S. Morishita, S. Sultana, N. Sato and Y. Yamashita, “Abdominal CT with Low Tube Voltage: Preliminary Observations about Radiation Dose, Contrast Enhancement, Image Quality, and Noise,” Radiology, Vol. 237, No. 3, 2005, pp. 945-951.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373041655

[7]   K. Awai, K. Takada, H. Onishi and S. Hori, “Aortic and Hepatic Enhancement and Tumor-to-Liver Contrast: Analysis of the Effect of Different Concentrations of Contrast Material at Multi-Detector Row Helical CT,” Radiology, Vol. 224, No. 3, 2002, pp. 757-763.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2243011188

[8]   H. J. Brisse, J. Brenot, N. Pierrat, G. Gaboriaud, A. Savi- gnoni, Y. De Rycke, S. Neuenschwander, B. Aubert and J. C. Rosenwald, “The Relevance of Image Quality Indices for Dose Optimization in Abdominal Multi-Detector Row CT in Children: Experimental Assessment with Pediatric Phantoms,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 54, No. 7, 2009, pp. 1871-1892.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/7/002

[9]   Y. Funama, K. Awai, Y. Nakayama, K. Kakei, N. Nagasue, M. Shimamura, N. Sato, S. Sultana, S. Morishita and Y. Yamashita, “Radiation Dose Reduction without Degradation of Low-Contrast Detectability at Abdominal Multisection CT with a Low-Tube Voltage Technique: Phan- tom study,” Radiology, Vol. 237, No. 3, 2005, pp. 905- 910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373041643

[10]   S. P. Kalva, D. V. Sahani, P. F. Hahn, et al., “Using the K-Edge to Improve Contrast Conspicuity and to Lower Radiation Dose with a 16-MDCT: A Phantom and Human Study,” Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2006, pp. 391-397.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200605000-00008

[11]   U. Nyman, T. L. Ahl, M. Kristiansson, L. Nilsson and S. Wettemark, “Patient-Circumference-Adapted Dose Regulation in Body Computed Tomography. A Practical and Flexible Formula,” Acta Radiologica, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2005, pp. 396-406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02841850510021193

[12]   T. Kubo, P. J. Lin, W. Stiller, M. Takahashi, H. U. Kauczor, Y. Ohno and H. Hatabu, “Radiation Dose Reduction in Chest CT: A Review,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 190, No. 2, 2008, pp. 335-343.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2556

[13]   A. L. Spielmann, J. P. Heneghan, L. J. Lee, T. Yoshizumi and R. C. Nelson, “Decreasing the Radiation Dose for Renal Stone CT: A Feasibility Study of Single- and Multidetector CT,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 178, No. 5, 2002, pp. 1058-1062.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781058

[14]   M. Hamm, E. Knopfle, S. Wartenberg, F. Wawroschek, D. Weckermann and R. Harzmann, “Low Dose Unenhanced Helical Computerized Tomography for the Evaluation of Acute Flank Pain,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 167, No. 4, 2002, pp. 1687-1691.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65178-6

[15]   C. McCollough, T. Branham, V. Herlihy, M. Bhargavan, L. Robbins, K. Bush, M. McNitt-Gray, J. T. Payne, T. Ruckdeschel, D. Pfeiffer, D. Cody and R. Zeman, “Diagnostic Reference Levels from the ACR CT Accreditation Program,” Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 8, No. 11, 2011, pp. 795-803.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.03.014

[16]   H. Greess, H. Wolf, U. Baum, M. Lell, M. Pirkl, W. Kalender and W. A. Bautz, “Dose Reduction in Computed Tomography by Attenuation-Based On-Line Modulation of the Tube Current: Evaluation of Six Anatomical Re- gions,” European Radiology, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2000, pp. 391-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003300050062

[17]   M. K. Kalra, S. Prasad, S. Saini, M. A. Blake, J. Varghese, E. F. Halpern, J. H. Thrall and J. T. Rhea, “Clinical Com- parison of Standard-Dose and 50% Reduced-Dose Abdominal CT: Effect on Image Quality,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 179, No. 5, 2002, pp. 1101-1106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791101

 
 
Top