Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit.

radiography are also valid with CT scanners, both the older devices and the new multislice devices. As with conventional radiography or fluoroscopy, the mottle or noise is directly related to the radiation exposure. One can optimize examinations to determine the appropriate dose required to produce diagnostic images without overapplication of radiation. Determining the optimal dose is especially important during interventional procedures when much repetitive or continuous scanning may be performed. Factors that have now focused new attention on this topic are the continuing technologic development, refinement of CT scanners, development of new applications, and subsequent

[1]  R Kötter,et al.  CT of the head by use of reduced current and kilovoltage: relationship between image quality and dose reduction. , 2000, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[2]  T M Yelbuz,et al.  Pulmonary nodules: experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. , 1999, Radiology.

[3]  W A Kalender,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. , 1999, Medical physics.

[4]  W Huda,et al.  Radiation exposure and image quality in chest CT examinations. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  W Huda,et al.  Radiation effective doses to patients undergoing abdominal CT examinations. , 1999, Radiology.

[6]  K S Lee,et al.  CT of the chest: minimal tube current required for good image quality with the least radiation dose. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  T Isomura,et al.  Lung cancer screening: minimum tube current required for helical CT. , 2000, Radiology.

[8]  Leo F W Martin.  Exposing radiation exposure. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  C A Kelsey,et al.  CT scanning: patterns of use and dose , 2000, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[10]  D. Brenner,et al.  Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  J. Haaga,et al.  The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. , 1981, Radiology.

[12]  J. Haaga.  New techniques for CT-guided biopsies. , 1979, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  A S Brody,et al.  Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large Children's Hospital. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  D. Frush,et al.  Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  D. Feigal,et al.  FDA public health notification: reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients. , 2002, International journal of trauma nursing.

[16]  James H Thrall,et al.  Clinical comparison of standard-dose and 50% reduced-dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  D. McCauley,et al.  Low-dose CT of the lungs: preliminary observations. , 1990, Radiology.

[18]  C.-Y. Chan,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in paediatric cranial CT , 1999, Pediatric Radiology.

[19]  H Rusinek,et al.  Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. , 1998, Radiology.