Radiation Dose from Contemporary Cardiothoracic Multidetector CT Protocols with an Anthropomorphic Female Phantom: Implications for Cancer Induction

Purpose: To measure prospectively and directly both organ dose and effective dose (ED) for adult cardiac and pulmonary computed tomographic (CT) angiography by using current clinical protocols for 64-detector CT in an anthropomorphic female phantom and to estimate lifetime attributable risk of breast and lung cancer incidence on the basis of measured ED and organ dose.

Materials and Methods: Cardiac and pulmonary 64-detector CT angiography was performed by using current clinical protocols to evaluate the pulmonary veins (electrocardiographically [ECG] gated, 64 sections at 0.625-mm collimation, 120 kVp, 300 mA, 0.35-second tube rotation), native coronary arteries (ECG gated; 64 sections at 0.625 mm; 120 kVp; maximum current, 500–750 mA; minimum, 100–350 mA; 0.35-second tube rotation) and pulmonary embolus (64 sections at 1.25 mm, 140 kVp, 645 mA, 0.5-second tube rotation). Absorbed organ doses were measured by using an anthropomorphic female phantom and metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor detectors. ED was calculated from measured organ doses and the dose-length product.

Results: ED for current adult cardiac and pulmonary 64-detector CT angiography protocols were 12.4–31.8 mSv. Overall, skin, breast, and esophagus and heart had the highest recorded absorbed organ doses. Relative risk for breast cancer incidence for girls and women was 1.004–1.042 for a single examination. Relative risk for lung cancer incidence for men and women was 1.005–1.076 from a single examination.

Conclusion: EDs and organ doses from 64-detector CT are higher than those previously reported for adult cardiac and pulmonary CT angiography protocols. Risk for breast and lung cancer induction from these studies is greatest for the younger patient population.

© RSNA, 2007


  • 1 Coche E, Vynchier S, Octave-Pignot M. Pulmonary embolus: radiation dose with multidetector row CT and digital angiography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006; 240(3): 690–697. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Coles DR, Smail MA, Negus IS, et al. Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1840–1845. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 O'Neill J, Murchison JT, Wright L, Williams J. Effect of the introduction of helical CT on radiation dose in the investigation of pulmonary embolus. Br J Radiol 2005;78:46–50. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kuiper JW, Geleijns J, Matheijssen NA, Teeuwisse W, Pattynama PM. Radiation exposure of multi-row detector spiral computed tomography of the pulmonary arteries: comparison with digital subtraction pulmonary angiography. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1496–1500. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Groves AM, Owen KE, Courtney HM, et al. 16-Detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte Carlo simulation. Br J Radiol 2004;77:662–665. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Geleijns J, Van Unnik JG, Zoetelief J, Zweers D, Broerse JJ. Comparison of two methods for assessing patient dose from computed tomography. Br J Radiol 1994;67:360–365. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi TT, Goodman P, et al. Comparison between the DLP method and MOSFET technology to determine effective dose in MDCT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31(4):544–549. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies, 2006. Google Scholar
  • 10 Adult female phantom model 702-D handling instructions [package insert]. Norfolk, Va: CIRS, 2002. Google Scholar
  • 11 Kruger RL, McCollough CH, Zink FE. Measurement of half-value layer in x-ray CT: a comparison of two noninvasive techniques. Med Phys 2000;27:1915–1919. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cristy M. Active bone marrow distribution as a function of ages in humans. Phys Med Biol 1981;26:389–400. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: ICRP publication no. 60. Oxford, England: Pergamon, 1991. Google Scholar
  • 14 Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurk GA, et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 1999. Google Scholar
  • 15 Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies, 2006; 311. Google Scholar
  • 16 Vranicar M, Hirsch R, Canter CE, Balzer DT. Selective coronary angiography in pediatric patients. Pediatr Cardiol 2000;21:285–288. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rumberger JA, Kaufman L. A rosetta stone for coronary calcium risk stratification: Agatston, volume, and mass scores in 11,490 individuals. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:743–748. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies, 2006; 278. Google Scholar
  • 19 Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi T, Reiman R, et al. Absorbed breast dose from current body MDCT imaging protocols. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:1718–1722. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Trabold T, Buchgeister M, Kuttner A, et al. Estimation of radiation exposure in 16-detector row computed tomography of the heart with retrospective ECG-gating. Rofo 2003;175:1051–1055. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Poll LW, Cohnen M, Brachten S, Ewen K, Modder U. Dose reduction in multislice CT of the heart by use of ECG-controlled tube current modulation (“ECG pulsing”): phantom measurements. Rofo 2002;174:1500–1505. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chen J, Lee RJ, Tsodikov A, Smith L, Gaffney DK. Does radiotherapy around the time of pregnancy for Hodgkin's disease modify the risk of breast cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58(5):1474–1479. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Little MP, Boice JD. Comparison of breast cancer incidence in the Massachusetts tuberculosis fluoroscopy cohort and in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 1999;151:218–224. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Lee ER, et al. Abdominal multislice CT for obese patients: effect on image quality and radiation dose in a phantom study. Acad Radiol 2007;14(4):486–494. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007