Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 4 , Pages 579-584 , April 2008

Comparison of Standard-Dose vs Low-Dose Attenuation Correction CT on Image Quality and Positron Emission Tomographic Attenuation Correction

References 

  1. Lowe VJ, Naunheim KS. Current role of positron emission tomography in thoracic oncology. Thorax. 1998;53:703–712
  2. Kalra MK, Rizzo S, Maher MM, et al. Chest CT performed with z-axis modulation: scanning protocol and radiation dose. Radiology. 2005;237:303–308
  3. Hubbell JH. Photon cross sections, attenuation coefficients, and energy absorption coefficients from 10 keV to 100 GeV (report no. NSRDS-NBS 29). http://www.nist.gov/srd/nsrds/NSRDS-NBS29.pdfAccessed February 19, 2008
  4. Hidajat N, Maurer J, Schroder RJ, et al. Relationships between physical dose quantities and patient dose in CT. Br J Radiol. 1999;72:556–561
  5. United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. New York: United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; 1993;
  6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure of the U.S. population from diagnostic medical radiation: recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (report no. 100). Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1989;
  7. Ware DE, Huda W, Mergo PJ, Litwiller AL. Radiation effective doses to patients undergoing abdominal CT examinations. Radiology. 1999;210:645–650
  8. Kalra MK, Prasad S, Saini S, et al. Clinical comparison of standard-dose and 50% reduced-dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1101–1106
  9. Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 1998;25:2046–2053
  10. Nakamoto Y, Chin BB, Kraitchman DL, Lawler LP, Marshall LT, Wahl RL. Effects of nonionic intravenous contrast agents at PET/CT imaging: phantom and canine studies. Radiology. 2003;227:817–824
  11. Albertyn LE. Rationales for the use of intravenous contrast medium in computed tomography. Australas Radiol. 1989;33:29–33
  12. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF. To enhance or not to enhance? (18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT). J Nucl Med. 2004;45(suppl):56S–65S
  13. Burgener FA, Hamlin DJ. Intravenous contrast enhancement in computed tomography of pelvic malignancies. Rofo. 1981;134:656–661
  14. Garrett PR, Meshkov SL, Perlmutter GS. Oral contrast agents in CT of the abdomen. Radiology. 1984;153:545–546
  15. Rehani MM, Bonegartz G, Kalendar W. Managing x-ray dose in computed tomography: ICRP special task force report. Ann ICRP. 2000;30:7–45
  16. Shope TB, Gagne RM, Johnson GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 1981;8:488–495
  17. McGhee PL, Humphreys S. Radiation dose associated with spiral computed tomography. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1994;45:124–129
  18. Imhof H, Schibany N, Ba-Ssalamah A, et al. Spiral CT and radiation dose. Eur J Radiol. 2003;47:29–37
  19. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Normalised organ doses for x-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques (report no. NRPB-SR250). Chilton, UK: National Radiation Protection Board; 1993;

PII: S1546-1440(07)00743-0

doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.12.007

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 4 , Pages 579-584 , April 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution