HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2332032107v1 233/2/515    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Siegel, M. J. Articles by Hildebolt, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Siegel, M. J. Articles by Hildebolt, C.

Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Pediatric CT: Effect of Technical Factors and Phantom Size and Shape¹

¹ From the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, St Louis, MO 63110 (M.J.S., C.H.); and Siemens Medical Corporation, Forcheim, Germany (B.S., D.B., C.S.). Received December 29, 2003; revision requested March 2, 2004; revision received April 23; accepted May 24. Address correspondence to M.J.S. (e-mail: siegelm@mir.wustl.edu).

PURPOSE: To evaluate effects of varying tube current and voltage on radiation dose, image noise, and image contrast with different phantom sizes and shapes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four round lucite phantoms with 8–32-cm diameters were scanned with multi–detector row computed tomography (CT) and 80–120 kVp. Radiation dose was based on CT dose index, image noise, and iodine contrast and measured with constant and variable tube currents that were age appropriate for each tube voltage. Radiation dose and image noise and contrast were compared in round and oval 24-cm phantoms. For various combinations of technical factors and phantom sizes and shapes, percentage differences were calculated for radiation dose and image noise and contrast. Associations between tube voltage and radiation dose, image noise, and image contrast in round and oval phantoms were determined by fitting second-degree polynomials to data. Differences in radiation dose and image noise and contrast, which were attributable to differences in tube voltage, were tested with paired t tests.

RESULTS: With 165-mAs tube current, radiation doses with 140- and 80-kVp tube voltages were 103% ([41.9 mGy – 20.6 mGy]/20.6 mGy) and 58% ([10.2 mGy – 4.2 mGy]/10.1 mGy) higher in the 8-cm phantom than in the 32-cm phantom. When tube current was adapted for phantom size, radiation dose at 80 kVp in the 8-cm phantom was reduced by 82% ([10.1 mGy – 1.8 mGy]/10.1 mGy). In the 8-cm phantom, tube voltage was decreased from 120 to 80 kVp and tube current remained at 165 mAs, resulting in a 68% noise increase ([3.1 HU – 1.8 HU]/1.8 HU). With variable tube current, 80-kVp tube voltage in the 8-cm phantom led to a 138% noise increase ([7.3 HU – 3.1 HU]/3.1 HU). With reduced tube voltage, image contrast increased. In the 8-cm phantom, with a constant 165-mAs tube current and a decrease in tube voltage from 120 to 80 kVp, there was a 35% ([333 HU – 217 HU]/333 HU) increase in contrast. No difference was noted in radiation dose or noise between round and oval phantoms (P = .604 and P = .06, respectively), but a small statistically significant difference (1%) in contrast attenuation was demonstrated (P = .025).

CONCLUSION: Reduced tube voltage for pediatric contrast material–enhanced CT reduces radiation dose and maintains image contrast. Image noise increases, but the effect is minimal in smaller phantoms. An additional reduction in tube current further reduces radiation dose.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), image quality • Computed tomography (CT), in infants and children • Computed tomography (CT), radiation exposure • Computed tomography (CT), technology • Phantoms • Test objects

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. C. Weinreb Which Study When? Is Gadolinium-enhanced MR Imaging Safer than Iodine-enhanced CT? Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 3 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. J. Chae, J.-W. Song, J. B. Seo, B. Krauss, Y. M. Jang, and K.-S. Song Clinical Utility of Dual-Energy CT in the Evaluation of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Initial Experience Radiology, September 16, 2008; (2008) 2492071956. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				M. E. Arch and D. P. Frush Pediatric Body MDCT: A 5-Year Follow-Up Survey of Scanning Parameters Used by Pediatric Radiologists Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 611 - 617. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. Goldman Principles of CT: Multislice CT J. Nucl. Med. Technol., June 1, 2008; 36(2): 57 - 68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Y. Lee, P. M. Boiselle, and R. H. Cleveland Multidetector CT Evaluation of Congenital Lung Anomalies Radiology, June 1, 2008; 247(3): 632 - 648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Herzog, D. M. Mulvihill, S. A. Nguyen, G. Savino, B. Schmidt, P. Costello, T. J. Vogl, and U. J. Schoepf Pediatric Cardiovascular CT Angiography: Radiation Dose Reduction Using Automatic Anatomic Tube Current Modulation Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1232 - 1240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Eichhorn, C. Jourdan, S. L. Hill, S. V. Raman, J. P. Cheatham, and F. R. Long CT of Pediatric Vascular Stents Used to Treat Congenital Heart Disease Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1241 - 1246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Just da Costa e Silva and G. Alves Pontes da Silva Eliminating Unenhanced CT When Evaluating Abdominal Neoplasms in Children Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1211 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Hollingsworth, T. T. Yoshizumi, D. P. Frush, F. P. Chan, G. Toncheva, G. Nguyen, C. R. Lowry, and L. M. Hurwitz Pediatric Cardiac-Gated CT Angiography: Assessment of Radiation Dose Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 12 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. J. Schoepf, P. L. Zwerner, G. Savino, C. Herzog, J. M. Kerl, and P. Costello Coronary CT Angiography Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 48 - 63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P C Shrimpton, M C Hillier, M A Lewis, and M Dunn National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003 Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(948): 968 - 980. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Nakayama, K. Awai, Y. Funama, D. Liu, T. Nakaura, Y. Tamura, and Y. Yamashita Lower tube voltage reduces contrast material and radiation doses on 16-MDCT aortography. Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2006; 187(5): W490 - W497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. Douglas-Akinwande, K. A. Buckwalter, J. Rydberg, J. L. Rankin, and R. H. Choplin Multichannel CT: Evaluating the Spine in Postoperative Patients with Orthopedic Hardware RadioGraphics, October 1, 2006; 26(suppl_1): S97 - S110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. K. Saxena, R. Kochhar, and L. Berlin Inadvertent High Radiation Dose to Pediatric Patients During CT: Whose Responsibility Is It? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 583 - 584. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. H. McCollough Automatic Exposure Control in CT: Are We Done Yet? Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 755 - 756. [Full Text] [PDF]