Radiation from "extra" Images Acquired with Abdominal And/or Pelvic CT: Effect of Automatic Tube Current Modulation
Affiliations
Purpose: To retrospectively determine the number and usefulness of images acquired beyond the intended anatomic area of interest with abdominal and/or pelvic computed tomography (CT) and to assess the effect of automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) on associated radiation.
Materials And Methods: Superior and inferior levels at routine abdominal and/or pelvic CT were defined as the dome of the diaphragm and the inferior margin of the pubic symphysis, respectively. Records of 106 consecutive examinations (male-to-female ratio, 45:61; age range, 21-86 years) performed from June 1 to June 30, 2003, were reviewed to determine the number of "extra" images. Sixty-two abdominal and/or pelvic CT examinations performed concurrently with chest or thigh CT or for trauma were not included in the 106. Abdominal and/or pelvic CT was performed with either ATCM (n = 44) or manual selection of tube current (n = 62). CT parameters recorded for each extra image included tube current, peak kilovoltage, and gantry rotation time. Mean and median tube current-time products were calculated for extra images. Extra images were analyzed for pathologic findings. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test.
Results: Extra images were acquired above the dome of the diaphragm in 103 (97%) of 106 examinations and below the pubic symphysis in 100 (94%) of 106. A total of 1,280 extra images were acquired in 106 examinations (mean, 12 images per examination). Nineteen additional findings were observed on extra images. With ATCM, mean tube current-time product was 74.5 and 120.6 mAs for extra images acquired above the diaphragm and below the pubic symphysis, respectively; with manual selection, mean tube current-time products were 167.5 and 168.3 mAs (P <.05).
Conclusion: Most extra images acquired at abdominal and/or pelvic CT contributed no additional information. With ATCM, the radiation dose was reduced by a mean of 56% (median, 72%) for extra images above the diaphragm and 29% (median, 36%) for images below the pubic symphysis, compared with dose levels with manual selection.
Computed Tomography Doses Calculation: Do We Really Need a New Dose Assessment Tool?.
Szarmach A, Sabiniewicz-Ziajka D, Grzywinska M, Gac P, Piskunowicz M, Wszedybyl-Winklewska M J Clin Med. 2025; 14(4).
PMID: 40004878 PMC: 11856821. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14041348.
Golbus A, Schuzer J, Steveson C, Rollison S, Matthews J, Henry-Ellis J Eur J Radiol Open. 2024; 13:100578.
PMID: 38993285 PMC: 11237680. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100578.
Weiss J, Maurer M, Ketelsen D, Notohamiprodjo M, Zinsser D, Wichmann J PLoS One. 2017; 12(7):e0180671.
PMID: 28678820 PMC: 5498060. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180671.
Computed tomography and patient risk: Facts, perceptions and uncertainties.
Power S, Moloney F, Twomey M, James K, OConnor O, Maher M World J Radiol. 2017; 8(12):902-915.
PMID: 28070242 PMC: 5183924. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i12.902.
Cumulative radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in intensive care unit patients.
Moloney F, Fama D, Twomey M, OLeary R, Houlihane C, Murphy K World J Radiol. 2016; 8(4):419-27.
PMID: 27158429 PMC: 4840200. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i4.419.