Radiation Exposure and Pregnancy: When Should We Be Concerned?

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.274065149

The potential biological effects of in utero radiation exposure of a developing fetus include prenatal death, intrauterine growth restriction, small head size, mental retardation, organ malformation, and childhood cancer. The risk of each effect depends on the gestational age at the time of exposure, fetal cellular repair mechanisms, and the absorbed radiation dose level. A comparison between the dose levels associated with each of these risks and the estimated fetal doses from typical radiologic examinations lends support to the conclusion that fetal risks are minimal and, therefore, that radiologic and nuclear medicine examinations that may provide significant diagnostic information should not be withheld from pregnant women. The latter position is advocated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, National Council on Radiation Protection, American College of Radiology, and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, although the risks are small, it is important to ensure that radiation doses are kept as low as reasonably achievable.

© RSNA, 2007


  • 1 WagnerLK, Lester RG, Saldana LR. Exposure of the pregnant patient to diagnostic radiations: a guide to medical management. Madison, Wis: Medical Physics Publishing, 1997. Google Scholar
  • 2 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford, England: International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1977. Google Scholar
  • 3 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Developmental effects of irradiation on the brain of the embryo and fetus. Ann ICRP 1986; 16: 1–43. Google Scholar
  • 4 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991; 21: 1–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pregnancy and medical radiation. Ann ICRP 2000; 30: 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Medical radiation exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women. NCRP report no. 54. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1977. Google Scholar
  • 7 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Recommendations on limits for exposure to ionizing radiation. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1987. Google Scholar
  • 8 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Risk estimates for radiation protection. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1993. Google Scholar
  • 9 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. A primer on low-level ionizing radiation and its biological effects. New York, NY: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1986. Google Scholar
  • 10 WagnerLK, Hayman LA. Pregnancy and women radiologists. Radiology1982; 145: 559–562. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 McColloughCH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. RadioGraphics2006; 26: 503–512. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 SchmidtB. Dose calculations for computed tomography. Reports from the Institute of Medical Physics, vol 7. Aachen, Germany: Shaker, 2001. Google Scholar
  • 13 SchmidtB, Kalender WA. A fast voxel-based Monte Carlo method for scanner- and patient-specific dose calculations in computed tomography. In: Del Guerra A, ed. Physica medica: European Journal of Medical Physics. Vol 18, no. 2 (April–June). Pisa, Italy: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 2002; 43–53. Google Scholar
  • 14 American College of Radiology. ACoR 04–05 bylaws. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2005. Google Scholar
  • 15 ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. ACOG Committee opinion no. 299, September 2004 (replaces no. 158, September 1995). Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 647–651. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 FieldingJR, Washburn D. Imaging the pregnant patient: a uniform approach. J Womens Imaging2005; 7: 16–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 El-KhouryGY, Madsen MT, Blake ME, Yankowitz J. A new pregnancy policy for a new era. AJR Am J Roentgenol2003; 181: 335–340. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 SmithRC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology1995; 194: 789–794. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 RipollesT, Errando J, Agramunt M, Martinez MJ. Ureteral colic: US versus CT. Abdom Imaging2004; 29: 263–266. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Winer-MuramHT, Boone JM, Brown HL, Jennings SG, Mabie WC, Lombardo GT. Pulmonary embolism in pregnant patients: fetal radiation dose with helical CT. Radiology2002; 224: 487–492. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21 CookJV, Kyriou J. Radiation from CT and perfusion scanning in pregnancy. BMJ2005; 331: 350. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 HurwitzLM, Yoshizumi T, Reiman RE, et al. Radiation dose to the fetus from body MDCT during early gestation. AJR Am J Roentgenol2006; 186: 871–876. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 HayashinoY, Goto M, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Ventilation-perfusion scanning and helical CT in suspected pulmonary embolism: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance. Radiology2005; 234: 740–748. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 24 PerrierA, Roy PM, Aujesky D, et al. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in outpatients with clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multi-center management study. Am J Med2004; 116: 291–299. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 RyuJH, Swensen SJ, Olson EJ, Pellikka PA. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with use of computed tomographic angiography. Mayo Clin Proc2001; 76: 59–65. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 BlachereH, Latrabe V, Montaudon M, et al. Pulmonary embolism revealed on helical CT angiography: comparison with ventilation-perfusion radionuclide lung scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol2000; 174: 1041–1047. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee Pulmonary Embolism Guideline Development Group. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Thorax 2003; 58: 470–483. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 SteinPD, Woodard PK, Weg JG, et al. Diagnostic pathways in acute pulmonary embolism: recommendations of the PIOPED II investigators. Radiology2007; 242: 15–21. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 29 SchusterME, Fishman JE, Copeland JF, Hatabu H, Boiselle PM. Pulmonary embolism in pregnant patients: a survey of practices and policies for CT pulmonary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol2003; 181: 1495–1498. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 MatthewsS. Short communication: imaging pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: what is the most appropriate imaging protocol? Br J Radiol2006; 79: 441–444. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 LowdermilkC, Gavant ML, Qaisi W, West OC, Goldman SM. Screening helical CT for evaluation of blunt traumatic injury in the pregnant patient. RadioGraphics1999; 19(spec no): S243–S255; discussion S256–S258. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 32 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

Article History

Published in print: July 2007