CT Dose Reduction and Dose Management Tools: Overview of Available Options

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.262055138

In the past decade, the tremendous advances in computed tomography (CT) technology and applications have increased the clinical utilization of CT, creating concerns about individual and population doses of ionizing radiation. Scanner manufacturers have subsequently implemented several options to appropriately manage or reduce the radiation dose from CT. Modulation of the x-ray tube current during scanning is one effective method of managing the dose. However, the distinctions between the various tube current modulation products are not clear from the product names or descriptions. Depending on the scanner model, the tube current may be modulated according to patient attenuation or a sinusoidal-type function. The modulation may be fully preprogrammed, implemented in near-real time by using a feedback mechanism, or achieved with both preprogramming and a feedback loop. The dose modulation may occur angularly around the patient, along the long axis of the patient, or both. Finally, the system may allow use of one of several algorithms to automatically adjust the current to achieve the desired image quality. Modulation both angularly around the patient and along the z-axis is optimal, but the tube current must be appropriately adapted to patient size for diagnostic image quality to be achieved.

© RSNA, 2006


  • 1 BrennerD, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol2001;176: 289–296. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 DonnellyLF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol2001;176:303–306. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 HaagaJR. Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. AJR Am J Roentgenol2001; 177:289–291. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 NickoloffEL, Alderson PO. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. AJR Am J Roentgenol2001;177:285–287. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 WiltingJE, Zwartkruis A, van Leeuwen MS, Timmer J, Kamphuis AG, Feldberg M. A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: individualized scan protocols. Eur Radiol2001;11:2627–2632. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 BooneJM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton-Gorges SL. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology2003;228:352–360. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 LintonOW, Mettler FA Jr. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol2003;181: 321–329. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 FrushDP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS. Computed tomography and radiation risks: what pediatric health care providers should know. Pediatrics2003;112:951–957. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 GoldingSJ, Shrimpton PC. Commentary: radiation dose in CT—are we meeting the challenge? Br J Radiol2002;75:1–4. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 FDA public health notification: reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:314–316. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 KalraMK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology2004;230:619–628. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 CodyDD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, 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 Roentgenol2004;182:849–859. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Task Group on Control of Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2000;30:7–45. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 HaagaJR, Miraldi F, MacIntyre W, LiPuma JP, Bryan PJ, Wiesen E. The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. Radiology1981;138:449–454. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 15 KopkaL, Funke M, Breiter N, Grabbe E. Anatomically adapted CT tube current: dose reduction and image quality in phantom and patient studies [abstract]. Radiology1995;197(P):292. Google Scholar
  • 16 KalenderWA, Wolf H, Suess C, Gies M, Hentschel D, Bautz W. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: experimental results and first patient studies [abstract]. Radiology1997;205(P):471. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17 KalenderWA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: phantom measurements. Med Phys1999;26:2248–2253. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 JakobsTF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol2002;12:1081–1086. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 KalraMK, Maher MM, Blake MA, Toth TL, Saini SS. Multidetector CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis: a study for optimization of automatic tube current modulation technique in 120 subjects [abstract]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2003; 294. Google Scholar
  • 20 McColloughCH, Zink FE, Kofler JM, Matsumoto JS, Thomas KB, Hoffman AD. Dose optimization in CT: creation, implementation and clinical acceptance of size-based technique charts [abstract]. Radiology2002; 225(P):591. Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Mar 2006