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

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2323031095v1 232/3/735    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 Brenner, D. J. Articles by Elliston, C. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brenner, D. J. Articles by Elliston, C. D.

Estimated Radiation Risks Potentially Associated with Full-Body CT Screening¹

¹ From the Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University, 630 W 168th St, New York, NY 10032. Received July 11, 2003; revision requested September 30; final revision received January 22, 2004; accepted February 23. Supported by U.S. Department of Energy Low-Dose Radiation Research Program grants DE-FG-02–01ER6326 and DE-FG-02–98ER62686 and by National Institutes of Health grants EB002033 and CA 49062. Address correspondence to D.J.B. (e-mail: djb3@columbia.edu).

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related cancer mortality risks associated with single or repeated full-body computed tomographic (CT) examinations by using standard radiation risk estimation methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated dose to the lung or stomach from a single full-body CT examination is 14–21 mGy, which corresponds to a dose region for which there is direct evidence of increased cancer mortality in atomic bomb survivors. Total doses for repeated examinations are correspondingly higher. The authors used estimated cancer risks in a U.S. population derived from atomic bomb–associated cancer mortality data, together with calculated organ doses from a full-body CT examination, to estimate the radiation risks associated with single and multiple full-body CT examinations.

RESULTS: A single full-body CT examination in a 45-year-old adult would result in an estimated lifetime attributable cancer mortality risk of around 0.08%, with the 95% credibility limits being a factor of 3.2 in either direction. A 45-year-old adult who plans to undergo annual full-body CT examinations up to age 75 (30 examinations) would accrue an overall estimated lifetime attributable risk of cancer mortality of about 1.9%, with the 95% credibility limits being a factor of 2 in either direction.

CONCLUSION: The authors provide estimates of lifetime cancer mortality risks from both single and annual full-body CT examinations. These risk estimates are needed to assess the utility of full-body CT examinations from both an individual and a public health perspective.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Cancer screening • Computed tomography (CT), radiation exposure, 60.47, 72.47 • Radiations, injurious effects, 60.47, 72.47

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
There is increasing interest, particularly from independent radiology clinics, in the use of full-body computed tomographic (CT) screening for healthy adults (1–3). The technique is intended to be an early detection device for a variety of diseases, including lung cancer, coronary artery disease, and colon cancer. At present, the evidence for the utility of this technique is anecdotal, and there is considerable controversy (4,5) with regard to its effectiveness. To our knowledge, no studies have yet been reported to indicate a life-prolonging benefit of full-body screening CT (6).

While the potential benefits and risks have been debated in terms of disease detection versus false-positive findings, less attention has been paid to the potential radiation risks associated with full-body CT scanning. The radiation issue is pertinent because CT examinations result in much higher organ doses than those with conventional single-film x-rays (7).

Typical doses from a single full-body CT examination are about 16 mGy to the lung, 14 mGy to the digestive organs, and 10 mGy to the bone marrow. The effective dose, which is a weighted average of doses to all organs (8), is about 12 mSv. If, for example, 10 such examinations were undertaken in a lifetime, the effective dose would be about 120 mSv—that is, 10 times higher than that for a single examination.

To put these doses in perspective, in the most recent report (9) on cancer incidence in survivors of the atomic bomb, individuals in the dose category from 5 to 100 mSv (mean, 29 mSv) show a statistically significant increase in solid cancer risk. The lowest dose category in the exposed atomic bomb survivor population (5–50 mSv; mean, 20 mSv) is also associated with increased cancer mortality risk (10), though of marginal statistical significance (P = .15).

Because of the increasing use of full-body CT screening (3), it is important to examine the potential risks associated with radiation exposure from full-body CT examinations. On the basis of low-dose risk estimates ultimately derived from atomic bomb data, we provide risk estimates for both single and annual full-body CT examinations. The low-dose risk estimates are based on a linear fit to the dose-response data in atomic bomb survivors (11,12).

It is important to note, as illustrated in Figure 1, that the doses of relevance here (approximately 12–350 mGy) correspond to a region in which data on increased radiation risks are directly available from atomic bomb survivors (11,12). It is also clear from Figure 1 that a linear fit to all the atomic bomb data provides estimated risks that are consistent with the data for the doses of relevance here—indeed, Figure 1 suggests that use of a linear fit for risk estimation might lead to slight underestimation of actual risks in the relevant dose range. Thus, while there will be confidence intervals around the risk estimates, it is unlikely that the risks are zero. Of course, the risk estimates for multiple (eg, annual) full-body CT examinations, for which the dose is correspondingly higher, will be considerably more robust.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1. Graph shows estimated excess relative risk () (±1 standard error [error bars]) of mortality (1950-1997) from solid cancer among groups of survivors in the life-span study cohort of atomic bomb survivors who were exposed to low doses (<500 mSv) of radiation (10). Dose limits for each group are shown above each data point. Dashed line represents result of zero-intercept linear fit (10) to all life-span study data from 5 to 4,000 mSv (higher dose points not shown). Arrows refer to estimated effective doses from one and five full-body CT examinations.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Overall Methods
The basic risk estimation technique is to multiply estimated sex-, age-, and organ-dependent lifetime cancer mortality risks (per unit dose) by estimated organ doses produced by full-body CT examinations. The resulting site-specific estimated cancer risks are then summed to yield the overall lifetime cancer mortality risk estimates. Further methodologic details have been described elsewhere (13).

Lifetime Mortality Risks per Unit Dose
Estimates of organ-dependent lifetime cancer mortality risks (per unit dose) have been given both by the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, or BEIR V, committee (14) and by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (8). Both estimates are based on relative risk models that are dependant on patient sex and age at exposure and inherently assume a linear extrapolation of risks from intermediate to low doses, as discussed earlier. Because of the inhomogeneous nature of the dose distribution produced by CT, we need to evaluate the age-dependent risks separately for each group of potential cancer sites; Figure 2 shows estimated age-dependent lifetime cancer mortality risks derived from the BEIR V committee report (14).

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2. Graph shows estimated excess cancer mortality risk according to age at time of exposure in a stationary population, with U.S. mortality risk rates, that is exposed to a radiation dose of 10 mSv (14). Data are averages between the sexes.

Organ Dose Estimation
Clearly, organ doses depend on the techniques used for full-body CT screening. For our study, we used a representative full-body CT scanning protocol from Fishman and Horton (18) from Johns Hopkins Hospital. This protocol involves the use of multi–detector row CT with a Volume Zoom scanner (Siemens, Munich, Germany) from the C3 vertebra through the symphysis pubis, an assumed length of 0.76 m. The protocol specifies 110–150 effective mAs at 120 kV, with a rotation time of 0.5 seconds. The collimation (beam width) is 10 mm, and the pitch, based on the total beam width, is 1.75. On the basis of the pitch, the true milliampere-second range is 190–260 mAs; we used a value of 230 mAs for all calculations.

On the basis of these CT parameters, organ doses can be estimated reliably by using a variety of techniques. We used the Imag-ing Performance Assessment of CT, or ImPACT, patient dosimetry calculator, which involves the use of techniques described by Jones and Shrimpton (19), together with an extensive database of almost all modern CT machines. Dosimetric calculations were also performed for Mx8000 (Philips, Andover, Mass) and LightSpeed Plus (GE Medical systems, Waukesha, Wis) scanners by using the same settings (120 kV, 230 mAs, 1.75 pitch, and 10-mm collimation).

Uncertainties in Risk Estimates
By using the methods described in reference 20, we estimated 95% credibility intervals (the range of risks that has a 95% probability of containing the true value) associated with these risk estimates. This was done by combining estimates of the various individual sources of uncertainty, such as the effect of fractionation and the risk transfer from Japanese to U.S. populations, which contribute to overall credibility limits.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The estimated organ doses for the previously described CT techniques used with the Volume Zoom scanner (Siemens) are given in the Table. These estimated organ doses were then used to calculate mortality risks. Even with the same settings, different scanners will produce somewhat different organ doses. For example, we calculated the total effective doses for the Mx8000 (Philips) and the LightSpeed Plus (GE Medical Systems) to be 3% and 37% higher, respectively, than that for the Volume Zoom scanner (Siemens). In particular, the calculated dose to the lung is 15.5 mGy for the Siemens scanner, 16.1 mGy for the Philips scanner, and 21.2 mGy for the GE Medical Systems scanner.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3. Graph shows excess cancer mortality risks estimated to be associated with radiation from a single full-body CT examination at a given age. Estimated 95% credibility limits are approximately a factor of 3.2 in either direction.

Figure 4 shows the corresponding risks for annual full-body CT scans, from a given age up to (but not including) 75 years. For example, a 45-year-old adult who plans to undergo annual full-body CT examinations up to age 75 (30 examinations) would accrue an overall estimated lifetime attributable risk of cancer mortality of about 1.9%. Because the doses are correspondingly higher for multiple examinations, the 95% credibility limits for the radiation risk estimates are narrower and are estimated to be a factor of 2 in either direction for 30 examinations.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4. Graph shows excess cancer mortality risks estimated to be associated with radiation from annual full-body CT examinations. Annual examinations are assumed to commence at the specified age and continue until age 75.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

The risk estimates provided here are ultimately based on data from atomic bomb survivors. The doses from a single full-body CT examination are only slightly lower than the mean doses in groups of atomic bomb survivors in which statistically significant increases in cancer risks are seen (9,10,12). Doses for multiple full-body CT examinations are correspondingly higher. Thus, the risk estimates provided here are not the result of extrapolation of risks from atomic bomb data at much higher radiation doses. Indeed, as discussed in the Introduction, estimation of the risks by using a linear model based on atomic bomb survivor data may result in slight underestimation of the risks in the dose range of interest.

Relevant organ doses from a representative full-body CT examination range from 10 to 16 mGy and result in a mean effective dose (ie, a weighted average over all relevant organs) of about 12 mSv. To put this in perspective, a typical screening mammogram produces about 2.6 mGy to the breast (21), with a corresponding effective dose of about 0.13 mSv—a factor of almost 100 times less. Another comparison would be with the annual natural background exposure, for which a typical effective dose is around 3 mSv (22).

Radiation-induced lung cancer is estimated to be the dominant cause of cancer mortality from full-body CT examinations. This is not unexpected because while radiation-related cancer risks generally decrease markedly with increasing age at exposure, radiation-induced lung cancer does not apparently show this decrease in risk until approximately age 55 (14,23,24).

The estimated lifetime cancer mortality risks from a single full-body CT examination are about 8 x 10^–4 (about one in 1250) for a 45-year-old adult and about 6 x 10^–4 (about one in 1700) for a 65-year-old adult. To put these values in perspective, the odds of an individual dying in a traffic accident in the U.S. during the year 1999 were about one in 5900 (25). Of course, there is uncertainty in the radiation risk estimate: We estimate that the 95% credibility limits for the radiation risk estimate are about a factor of 3.2 in either direction—thus, the lifetime risk from a full-body CT examination in a 45-year-old adult could be as low as 2.5 x 10^–4 or as high as 2.5 x 10^–3.

The risk estimates for multiple CT examinations are correspondingly higher. For example, a 45-year-old adult who plans to undergo 30 annual full-body CT examinations would potentially accrue an estimated lifetime cancer mortality risk of 1.9% (almost one in 50). Note that the risk associated with 30 annual full-body CT examinations is somewhat less than 30 times the risk of a single examination at age 45, despite the assumption of risk additivity, since the single-examination risks decrease with increasing age at exposure.

Correspondingly, a 60-year-old who plans to undergo 15 annual full-body CT examinations would potentially accrue an estimated lifetime cancer mortality risk of one in 220. Again, for comparison, the lifetime odds that an individual born in the United States in 1999 will die in a traffic accident are estimated to be one in 77 (25).

As a result of the higher doses involved for multiple examinations, the credibility limits on the risk estimate are narrower, typically by about a factor of 2 in either direction for 30 examinations. The risks from multiple full-body CT examinations can, of course, be reduced by undergoing fewer examinations and/or starting at a later age.

It is important to note that the doses and risk estimates used here are based on a particular full-body CT protocol (18). Even with the same CT settings, different scanners will produce different doses and therefore different risks—we estimate by up to 35%. Full-body CT protocols are by no means standardized at this time, and higher milliampere-second settings will result in correspondingly higher doses and therefore higher risks.

Because of the comparatively low doses associated with full-body CT examinations, the risk estimates provided here have nonnegligible uncertainties associated with them. However, despite these uncertainties—factors of 2 to 3—these risk estimates are sufficiently robust to be useful in the assessment of the utility of full-body CT examinations, from both an individual and a public health perspective.

	FOOTNOTES

 
Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.

Author contributions: Guarantor of integrity of entire study, D.J.B.; study concepts and design, D.J.B., C.D.E.; literature research, D.J.B., C.D.E.; data acquisition and analysis/interpretation, D.J.B., C.D.E.; statistical analysis, D.J.B., C.D.E.; manuscript preparation, definition of intellectual content, editing, revision/review, and final version approval, D.J.B., C.D.E.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1. Food and Drug Administration. Full-body CT scans: what you need to know. DHHS Publication FDA (03)-0001. Available at: www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/ctscansbro.html. Accessed October 2003.
2. Brant-Zawadzki M. CT screening: why I do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:319-326.[Free Full Text]
3. Illes J, Fan E, Koenig BA, Raffin TA, Kann D, Atlas SW. Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers. Radiology 2003; 228:346-351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Holtz A. Whole-body CT screening: scanning or scamming? Oncol Times 2003; 25:5-7.
5. Berland LL, Berland NW. Whole-body computed tomography screening. Semin Roentgenol 2003; 38:65-76.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Casola G, Furtado CD, Stamato S, Lee P, Dang D, Sani F. Whole body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations (abstr). Radiology 2002; 225(P):317.[Free Full Text]
7. Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. CT: an increasingly important slice of the medical exposure of patients. Br J Radiol 1993; 66:1067-1068.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 60, International Commission on Radiological Protection Oxford, England: Pergamon, 1991.
9. Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 2000; 154:178-186.[Medline]
10. Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality—1950–1997. Radiat Res 2003; 160:381-407.
11. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Evaluation of the linear nonthreshold dose-response model for ionizing radiation Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2001.
12. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100:13761-13766.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:289-296.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR V Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
15. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Influence of dose and its distribution in time on dose-response relationships for low-LET radiations Washington, DC: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1980.
16. Ullrich RL, Jernigan MC, Satterfield LC, Bowles ND. Radiation carcinogenesis: time-dose relationships. Radiat Res 1987; 111:179-184.[Medline]
17. Howe GR. Lung cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 after exposure to fractionated moderate-dose-rate ionizing radiation in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study and a comparison with lung cancer mortality in the atomic bomb survivors study. Radiat Res 1995; 142:295-304.[Medline]
18. Fishman EK, Horton KM. What application should you offer in a whole body CT screening center? Available at: www.screeningctisus.com/articles/screeningctisus.html. Accessed October 2003.
19. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Survey of CT practice in the UK: normalised organ doses for x-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques Harwell UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 1991. Available at: www.impactscan.org/ctdosimetry.htm. Accessed October 2003.
20. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Uncertainties in fatal cancer risk estimates used in radiation protection Report 126. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1997.
21. Kruger RL, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 2001; 28:1449-1454.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure of the population in the United States and Canada from natural background radiation NCRP Report 94. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1988.
23. Thompson DE, Mabuchi K, Ron E, et al. Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part II. Solid tumors, 1958–1987. Radiat Res 1994; 137(suppl 2):S17-S67.
24. Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology 2004; 231:440-445.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek KD. Deaths: final data for 1999. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2001; 49:1-113.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. M. Caoili, R. H. Cohan, J. H. Ellis, J. Dillman, M. J. Schipper, and I. R. Francis Medical Decision Making Regarding Computed Tomographic Radiation Dose and Associated Risk: The Patient's Perspective Arch Intern Med, June 8, 2009; 169(11): 1069 - 1071. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. Lee, A. Y. Kim, S.-K. Yang, J.-W. Chung, S. Y. Kim, S. H. Park, and H. K. Ha Crohn Disease of the Small Bowel: Comparison of CT Enterography, MR Enterography, and Small-Bowel Follow-Through as Diagnostic Techniques Radiology, June 1, 2009; 251(3): 751 - 761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. T. Griffey and A. Sodickson Cumulative Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risk Estimates in Emergency Department Patients Undergoing Repeat or Multiple CT Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2009; 192(4): 887 - 892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Hassan, P. J. Pickhardt, A. Laghi, A. Zullo, D. H. Kim, F. Iafrate, L. Di Giulio, and S. Morini Impact of Whole-Body CT Screening on the Cost-effectiveness of CT Colonography Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 156 - 165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Huang, M. W.-M. Law, and P.-L. Khong Whole-Body PET/CT Scanning: Estimation of Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 166 - 174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. B. Petitti, S. M. Teutsch, M. B. Barton, G. F. Sawaya, J. K. Ockene, T. DeWitt, and on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task For Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Insufficient Evidence Ann Intern Med, February 3, 2009; 150(3): 199 - 205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. A Scott Evaluating cardiovascular risk assessment for asymptomatic people BMJ, January 5, 2009; 338(jan05_1): a2844 - a2844. [Full Text]

				M. Brink, F. de Lange, L. J. Oostveen, H. M. Dekker, D. R. Kool, J. Deunk, M. J. R. Edwards, C. van Kuijk, R. L. Kamman, and J. G. Blickman Arm Raising at Exposure-controlled Multidetector Trauma CT of Thoracoabdominal Region: Higher Image Quality, Lower Radiation Dose Radiology, November 1, 2008; 249(2): 661 - 670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Stolzmann, T. Frauenfelder, T. Pfammatter, N. Peter, H. Scheffel, M. Lachat, B. Schmidt, B. Marincek, H. Alkadhi, and T. Schertler Endoleaks after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Detection with Dual-Energy Dual-Source CT Radiology, November 1, 2008; 249(2): 682 - 691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Chandarana, M. C. B. Godoy, I. Vlahos, A. Graser, J. Babb, C. Leidecker, and M. Macari Abdominal Aorta: Evaluation with Dual-Source Dual-Energy Multidetector CT after Endovascular Repair of Aneurysms--Initial Observations Radiology, November 1, 2008; 249(2): 692 - 700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Aggarwal and P.R. Mohapatra High-resolution computed tomography in Mycobacterium avium complex disease: one step forward, two steps back Eur. Respir. J., September 1, 2008; 32(3): 813 - 813. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Geisel, J. T. Heverhagen, M. Kalinowski, and H.-J. Wagner DNA Double-Strand Breaks after Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 852 - 859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. A. Mettler Jr, W. Huda, T. T. Yoshizumi, and M. Mahesh Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 254 - 263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. M. Burger, N. E. Kass, J. H. Sunshine, and S. S. Siegelman The Use of CT for Screening: A National Survey of Radiologists' Activities and Attitudes Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 160 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E J HALL and D J BRENNER Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2008; 81(965): 362 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Masciari, A. D. Van den Abbeele, L. R. Diller, I. Rastarhuyeva, J. Yap, K. Schneider, L. Digianni, F. P. Li, J. F. Fraumeni Jr, S. Syngal, et al. F18-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Screening in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome JAMA, March 19, 2008; 299(11): 1315 - 1319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P P Dendy Radiation risks in interventional radiology Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2008; 81(961): 1 - 7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Brenner and E. J. Hall Computed Tomography -- An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure N. Engl. J. Med., November 29, 2007; 357(22): 2277 - 2284. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Voress The Increasing Use of CT and Its Risks Radiol. Technol., November 1, 2007; 79(2): 186 - 190. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Jaffe, A. M. Gaca, S. Delaney, T. T. Yoshizumi, G. Toncheva, G. Nguyen, and D. P. Frush Radiation Doses from Small-Bowel Follow-Through and Abdominopelvic MDCT in Crohn's Disease Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1015 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Remy-Jardin, M. Pistolesi, L. R. Goodman, W. B. Gefter, A. Gottschalk, J. R. Mayo, and H. D. Sostman Management of Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of CT Angiography: A Statement from the Fleischner Society Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 315 - 329. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E Cardis Commentary: Low dose-rate exposures to ionizing radiation Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2007; 36(5): 1046 - 1047. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. M. Feuchtner, T. Schachner, J. Bonatti, G. J. Friedrich, P. Soegner, A. Klauser, and D. z. Nedden Diagnostic Performance of 64-Slice Computed Tomography in Evaluation of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 574 - 580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A Kuehle, J. Langhorst, S. C Ladd, T. Zoepf, M. Nuefer, F. Grabellus, J. Barkhausen, G. Gerken, and T. C Lauenstein Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population Gut, August 1, 2007; 56(8): 1079 - 1085. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. M. Trotta, A. V. Stolin, M. B. Williams, S. B. Gay, A. S. Brody, and T. A. Altes Characterization of the Relation Between CT Technical Parameters and Accuracy of Quantification of Lung Attenuation on Quantitative Chest CT Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2007; 188(6): 1683 - 1690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. de Wit Cutting Back on Computed Tomography Scan Frequency in Curative Oncology: Get the Picture J. Clin. Oncol., April 10, 2007; 25(11): 1308 - 1309. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Rothkamm, S. Balroop, J. Shekhdar, P. Fernie, and V. Goh Leukocyte DNA Damage after Multi-Detector Row CT: A Quantitative Biomarker of Low-Level Radiation Exposure Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 244 - 251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Schoder and M. Gonen Screening for Cancer with PET and PET/CT: Potential and Limitations J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 4S - 18S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. de Wit and K. Fizazi Controversies in the Management of Clinical Stage I Testis Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., December 10, 2006; 24(35): 5482 - 5492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Redpath Health risks of low photon energy imaging Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2006; 122(1-4): 528 - 533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Macari, H. Chandarana, B. Schmidt, J. Lee, P. Lamparello, and J. Babb Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Can the Arterial Phase at CT Evaluation after Endovascular Repair Be Eliminated to Reduce Radiation Dose? Radiology, December 1, 2006; 241(3): 908 - 914. [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]

				M. Dewey, F. Teige, D. Schnapauff, M. Laule, A. C. Borges, K.-D. Wernecke, T. Schink, G. Baumann, W. Rutsch, P. Rogalla, et al. Noninvasive detection of coronary artery stenoses with multislice computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med, September 19, 2006; 145(6): 407 - 415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Ueno, H. Kawamura, H. Takahashi, N. Fujisawa, M. Yoneda, H. Kirikoshi, T. Sakaguchi, S. Saito, and S. Togo Characterization of portal vein thrombus with the use of contrast-enhanced sonography. J. Ultrasound Med., September 1, 2006; 25(9): 1147 - 1152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. I. Lee, H. V. Flaster, A. H. Haims, E. P. Monico, and H. P. Forman Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers. Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2006; 187(2): 282 - 287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Salim, B. Sangthong, M. Martin, C. Brown, D. Plurad, and D. Demetriades Whole Body Imaging in Blunt Multisystem Trauma Patients Without Obvious Signs of Injury: Results of a Prospective Study Arch Surg, May 1, 2006; 141(5): 468 - 475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Hadley, J. Agola, and P. Wong Potential Impact of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria on CT for Trauma. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 937 - 942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. I. Katz, S. Saluja, J. A. Brink, and H. P. Forman Radiation Dose Associated with Unenhanced CT for Suspected Renal Colic: Impact of Repetitive Studies. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 1120 - 1124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. Whiteman, Y. Yang, D. G. van Pittius, M. Stephens, J. Parmer, and M. A. Spiteri Optical Coherence Tomography: Real-time Imaging of Bronchial Airways Microstructure and Detection of Inflammatory/Neoplastic Morphologic Changes Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2006; 12(3): 813 - 818. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J.H. Wermer, I. C. van der Schaaf, B. K. Velthuis, C. B. Majoie, K. W. Albrecht, and G. J.E. Rinkel Yield of Short-Term Follow-up CT/MR Angiography for Small Aneurysms Detected at Screening Stroke, February 1, 2006; 37(2): 414 - 418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Clouse, J. Chen, H. M. Krumholz, M. E. Clouse, J. Chen, and H. M. Krumholz Noninvasive Screening for Coronary Artery Disease With Computed Tomography Is Useful Circulation, January 3, 2006; 113(1): 125 - 146. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. I. Reiner, E. L. Siegel, K. M. Siddiqui, and A. E. Musk Quality Assurance: The Missing Link Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 13 - 15. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Nakayama, K. Awai, Y. Funama, M. Hatemura, M. Imuta, T. Nakaura, D. Ryu, S. Morishita, S. Sultana, N. Sato, et al. Abdominal CT with Low Tube Voltage: Preliminary Observations about Radiation Dose, Contrast Enhancement, Image Quality, and Noise Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 945 - 951. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D. Furtado, D. A. Aguirre, C. B. Sirlin, D. Dang, S. K. Stamato, P. Lee, F. Sani, M. A. Brown, D. L. Levin, and G. Casola Whole-Body CT Screening: Spectrum of Findings and Recommendations in 1192 Patients Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 385 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. H. Mulkens, P. Bellinck, M. Baeyaert, D. Ghysen, X. Van Dijck, E. Mussen, C. Venstermans, and J.-L. Termote Use of an Automatic Exposure Control Mechanism for Dose Optimization in Multi-Detector Row CT Examinations: Clinical Evaluation Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 213 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. D. Brennan, T. Gleeson, L. E. Coate, C. Cronin, D. Carney, and S. J. Eustace A Comparison of Whole-Body MRI and CT for the Staging of Lymphoma Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 711 - 716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Lobrich, N. Rief, M. Kuhne, M. Heckmann, J. Fleckenstein, C. Rube, and M. Uder In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinations PNAS, June 21, 2005; 102(25): 8984 - 8989. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Levatter, D. J. Brenner, and C. D. Elliston Radiation Risk of Body CT: What to Tell Our Patients and Other Questions * Drs Brenner and Elliston respond: Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 968 - 970. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Illes, D. Kann, K. Karetsky, P. Letourneau, T. A. Raffin, P. Schraedley-Desmond, B. A. Koenig, and S. W. Atlas Advertising, Patient Decision Making, and Self-referral for Computed Tomographic and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Arch Intern Med, December 13, 2004; 164(22): 2415 - 2419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Stanley Screening Revisited Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2004; 183(6): 1537 - 1537. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Radiation-Related Cancer Risk of Full-Body CT Scanning Journal Watch Gastroenterology, October 26, 2004; 2004(1026): 4 - 4. [Full Text]

				Radiation Risks with Full-Body CT Screening Journal Watch (General), September 21, 2004; 2004(921): 5 - 5. [Full Text]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2323031095v1 232/3/735    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 Brenner, D. J. Articles by Elliston, C. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brenner, D. J. Articles by Elliston, C. D.