Use of an Automatic Exposure Control Mechanism for Dose Optimization in Multi–Detector Row CT Examinations: Clinical Evaluation

References

• 1 Linton OW, Mettler FA. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on paediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:321–329.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2 Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.
  Google Scholar
• 3 Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the United Kingdom and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345–351.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4 Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon WE. Estimated risk of radiation-induced fatal cancer from paediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:289–296.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5 Rehani MM, Bongartz G, Golding SJ, et al. Managing patient dose in computed tomography: ICRP special task force report. Ann ICRP 2000;30:7–45.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6 Slovis TL. CT and computed radiography: the pictures are great, but is the radiation dose greater than required? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:39–41.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7 Slovis TL. The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? Radiology 2002;223:5–6.
  Google Scholar
• 8 Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004;232:735–738.
  Google Scholar
• 9 Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C, Gies M, Greess H, Bautz WA. Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers. Eur Radiol 1999;9:323–328.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kalender WA. Possibilities for reducing the dose in CT. In: Computed tomography. Munich, Germany: Publicis MCD Verlag, 2000; 139–142.
  Google Scholar
• 11 Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 2000;10:391–394.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Mahesh M, Scatarige JC, Cooper J, Fishman EK. Dose and pitch relationship for a particular multidetector CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:1273–1275.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13 Silverman PM, Kalender WA, Hazle JD. Common terminology for single and multidetector helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1135–1136.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14 Quality criteria for computed tomography, European guidelines. EU report 16262 EN. European Commission of the European Community, Brussels, Belgium, 1998.
  Google Scholar
• 15 Health implications of obesity: National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement. Ann Intern Med 1985;103:1073–1077.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16 Schmidt B, Kalender WA. A fast voxel-based Monte Carlo method for scanner- and patient-specific calculations in computed tomography. Phys Med 2002;18:43–53.
  Google Scholar
• 17 Greess H, Wolf H, Kalender WA, Bautz W. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: first patient studies. In: Glazer G, Krestin G, eds. Advances in CT. Vol 4. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1998; 35–40.
  Google Scholar
• 18 Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Dose reduction in multidetector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:331–334.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19 Mastora I, Remy-Jardin M, Delannoy V, et al. Multi-detector row spiral CT angiography of the thoracic outlet: dose reduction with anatomically adapted online tube current modulation and preset dose savings. Radiology 2004;230:116–124.
  Google Scholar
• 20 Greess H, Nomayr A, Wolf H, et al. Dose reduction in CT examination of children by an attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current (CARE Dose). Eur Radiol 2002;12:1571–1576.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21 Itoh S, Ikeda M, Arahata S, et al. Lung cancer screening: minimum tube current required for helical CT. Radiology 2000;215:175–183.
  Google Scholar
• 22 Kaneko M, Eguchi K, Ohmatsu H, et al. Peripheral lung cancer: screening and detection with low-dose spiral CT versus radiography. Radiology 1996;201:798–802.
  Google Scholar
• 23 Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology 1998;209:243–249.
  Google Scholar
• 24 Cody DD, Moxley DM, Kerry T, O'Daniel JC, Wagner LK, Eftekhari F. Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:849–859.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25 Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton-Gorges SL. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 2003;228:352–360.
  Google Scholar
• 26 Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, Chen X, Paul JF. Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 2004;231:169–174.
  Google Scholar