Standardized CT protocols and nomenclature: better, but not yet there

Radiation dose associated with CT is an important safety concern in patient care, especially in children. Technical advancements in multidetector-row CT scanner technology offer several advantages for clinical applications; these advancements have considerably increased CT utilization and enhanced the complexity of CT scanning protocols. Furthermore there are several scan manufacturers spearheading these technical advancements, leading to different commercial names causing confusion among the users, especially at imaging sites with scanners from different vendors. Several scientific studies and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have shown variation in CT radiation doses for same body region and similar scanning protocols. Therefore there is a need for standardization of scanning protocols and nomenclature of scan parameters. The following material reviews the status and challenges in standardization of CT scanning and nomenclature.

[1]  M. L. Rosado de Christenson,et al.  Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Technique for Radiation Dose Reduction in Chest CT: A Pilot Study , 2012 .

[2]  Nils Dahlström,et al.  Radiation Dose Reduction With Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction Technique for Abdominal Computed Tomography , 2012, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[3]  Keith J Strauss,et al.  Variation in computed tomography radiation dose in community hospitals. , 2012, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[4]  W. Eckelman,et al.  NCRP report no. 93: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland (1987). US$15.00 , 1988 .

[5]  Point/Counterpoint. Exposure tracking for x-ray imaging is a bad idea. , 2014, Medical physics.

[6]  Saint Louis,et al.  American Association of Physicists in Medicine , 2014 .

[7]  R. Stachler,et al.  Defining quality metrics and improving safety and outcome in allergy care , 2014, International forum of allergy & rhinology.

[8]  M. Kalra,et al.  Standardized nomenclature and description of CT scanning techniques. , 2006, Radiology.

[9]  B. Haylen.  IUGA-ICS terminology and standardization documents: maximal use offers maximum patient and academic benefit , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.

[10]  C. McCollough.  Standardization Versus Individualization: How Each Contributes to Managing Dose in Computed Tomography , 2013, Health physics.

[11]  J. Eatough,et al.  Variations in radiation dose between the same model of multislice CT scanner at different hospitals. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[12]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[13]  J. Remy,et al.  Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 1): evaluation of image noise reduction in 32 patients , 2011, European Radiology.

[14]  Mannudeep K. Kalra,et al.  Comparison of Hybrid and Pure Iterative Reconstruction Techniques With Conventional Filtered Back Projection: Dose Reduction Potential in the Abdomen , 2012, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[15]  L. Yarmus,et al.  Utilization of a standardized tracheostomy capping and decannulation protocol to improve patient safety , 2014, The Laryngoscope.

[16]  H. Shim,et al.  Image quality of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D of coronary CT angiography of 640-slice CT: comparison with filtered back-projection , 2013, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[17]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. , 2010, Radiology.

[18]  Richard L Morin,et al.  The ACR Computed Tomography Dose Index Registry: the 5 million examination update. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.