Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

Research ArticlePatient Safety

Lens Exposure during Brain Scans Using Multidetector Row CT Scanners: Methods for Estimation of Lens Dose

S. Suzuki, S. Furui, T. Ishitake, T. Abe, H. Machida, R. Takei, K. Ibukuro, A. Watanabe, T. Kidouchi and Y. Nakano
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2010, 31 (5) 822-826; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1946
S. Suzuki
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Furui
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Ishitake
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Abe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Machida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Takei
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K. Ibukuro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Watanabe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Kidouchi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Y. Nakano
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Some recent studies on radiation lens injuries have indicated much lower dose thresholds than specified by the current radiation protection guidelines. The purpose of this research was to measure the lens dose during brain CT scans with multidetector row CT and to assess methods for estimating the lens dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: With 8 types of multidetector row CT scanners, both axial and helical scans were obtained for the head part of a human-shaped phantom by using normal clinical settings with the orbitomeatal line as the baseline. We measured the doses on both eyelids by using an RPLGD during whole-brain scans including the orbit with the starting point at the level of the inferior orbital rim. To assess the effect of the starting points on the lens doses, we measured the lens doses by using 2 other starting points for scanning (the orbitomeatal line and the superior orbital rim).

RESULTS: The CTDIvols and the lens doses during whole-brain CT including the orbit were 50.9–113.3 mGy and 42.6–103.5 mGy, respectively. The ratios of lens dose to CTDIvol were 80.6%–103.4%. The lens doses decreased as the starting points were set more superiorly. The lens doses during scans from the superior orbital rim were 11.8%–20.9% of the doses during the scans from the inferior orbital rim.

CONCLUSIONS: CTDIvol can be used to estimate the lens dose during whole-brain CT when the orbit is included in the scanning range.

Abbreviations

CTDI
CT dose index
CTDIvols
volume CT dose indices
DIOR
lens dose during whole-brain scanning from the inferior orbital rim
DOM
lens dose during scanning from the orbitomeatal line
DSOR
lens dose during scanning from the superior orbital rim
ICRP
International Commission on Radiological Protection
mAseff
mAs divided by helical pitch
RPLGD
radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter

The eye lens is one of the most radiosensitive tissues. According to 1990 recommendations of the ICRP,1 the thresholds in a single brief exposure for detectable opacities and visual impairment (cataract) are 0.5–2.0 and 5.0 Sv, respectively. In highly fractionated or protracted exposures, the threshold is 5 Sv for detectable opacities and >8 Sv for cataracts. However, a number of recent studies have supported lower thresholds for radiation-induced lens injuries.2–6 Some authors have suggested that the risk of cataract increases with increased radiation dose without a threshold.2,3 Given these data, the ICRP referred to the need for a detailed revaluation of the radiosensitivity of the lens.7

During brain CT scans, the lens is irradiated indirectly and/or directly. With single-detector row CT, the evaluation of the posterior cranial fossa had been limited by streak artifacts caused by the thick irregular bone of the skull base.8 On the other hand, multidetector row CT provides better images with fewer artifacts in the posterior cranial fossa.8 However, the orbit is included in the scanning range during whole-brain CT, including the posterior cranial fossa, if the orbitomeatal line is used as a baseline.9 Considering the above studies supporting lower thresholds for radiation-induced lens injuries, we believe the exposure to the lens during brain CT scans with multidetector row CT should be re-evaluated. However, it is difficult to estimate the lens dose during brain CT in individual cases because the dose varies considerably due to differences in the type of CT scanners and scan settings. Bauhs et al10 reported that the CTDI can be used theoretically to estimate the average dose from multiple scans with table increments.

Table 1 shows the formulas for CTDI and its variations. However, the surface dose is not constant along the z-axis in the scanning range of whole-brain CT. The dose profile along the z-axis has multiple peaks according to the number of axial scans.10 Even with helical scanning (and of course with axial scanning), the doses near the starting and end points are lower than the dose of the central portion of the scanning range along z-axis due to the presence of less scatter radiation. The dose is not constant in the x-y plane either due to a bow-tie filter. A bow-tie filter is automatically used for brain scans in many multidetector row CT scanners to reduce the peripheral dose, and it affects the surface doses.11 Moreover, the homogeneous polymethylmethacrylate phantom for CTDI measurement does not simulate the different tissue types and heterogeneities of a real patient. These factors preclude CTDI from being the same as tissue dosimetry in a real patient. To our knowledge, there have been no reports describing the relationship between the patient's lens dose and CTDI during brain CT scans with multidetector row CT.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Formulas for CTDI and its variations

The purpose of this research was to measure the lens dose during brain CT with multidetector row CT and to assess methods for estimating the lens dose with CTDIvols.

Materials and Methods

CT Scanning

Using 8 types of multidetector row CT scanners, we obtained whole-brain CT scans for the head part of a Rando phantom (Phantom Laboratories, Salem, New York), which represented a 163-cm-tall and 54-kg female figure. We used both axial and helical scans for each CT scanner. Table 2 shows the scanning parameters. For each scanner, tube voltage was set at 120 kV, and the scanning parameters in Table 1 represent the normal clinical settings. We used the orbitomeatal line as the baseline. In each scanner, the CTDIvol was displayed on the console.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Scanning parameters for both axial and helical scans with each CT scanner

The starting point of the whole-brain CT scan was 15 mm below the orbitomeatal line, and the end point was the top of the head. The former corresponded to the level of the inferior orbital rim.

Lens-Dose Measurement on Human-Shaped Phantoms

We measured the doses on the centers of both eyelids by using a RPLGD. We regarded the average dose of both sides as the lens dose. To estimate the uncertainty in these dose assessments, we repeated the measurements 3 times. The RPLGD chip (GD-352M, Asahi Techno Glass, Shizuoka, Japan) consists of a glass element with a 1.5-mm diameter and 12-mm length and a holder with an energy-compensation filter of 0.75-mm tin. We annealed the glass elements of the RPLGD for 1 hour at 400°C and cooled them down slowly to room temperature before the exposure. A preheating process was performed for 30 minutes at 70°C after the exposure, and a fully automatic system (FGD-1000, Asahi Techno Glass) was used for the readout. For calibration, we used a standard glass irradiated with 137 Cs of gamma ray energy (0.662 MeV) of 6 mGy. According to the data provided by the manufacturer, the coefficient of variation is ≤2% at ≥1 mGy.

Effect of the Starting Point of the Scanning on Lens Dose

To assess the effect of the starting points on the lens doses, we measured the lens doses during brain CT scanning for axial scans by using 2 other starting points of scanning (the orbitomeatal line and the superior orbital rim). The latter corresponded to the level 15 mm above the orbitomeatal line. The end points were the top of the head in all scans.

Results

Table 3 shows CTDIvols and the lens doses during whole-brain CT including the orbit for both axial and helical scans with each CT scanner. The CTDIvols and the lens doses were 50.9–113.3 mGy and 42.6–103.5 mGy, respectively. The former tended to be larger than the latter, and the ratios of lens dose to CTDIvol were 80.6%–103.4%.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

CTDIvols and the lens doses for both axial and helical scans with each CT scanner during whole-brain CT including the orbit

Table 4 shows the effects of the starting point of the scanning on the lens dose. The lens doses decreased as the starting points were set more superiorly. The lens doses during scanning from the superior orbital rim were 11.8%–20.9% of the doses during scanning from the inferior orbital rim. The ratios of lens dose to CTDIvol during scanning from the orbitomeatal line and from the superior orbital rim were 60.3%–86.1%, and 10.4%–17.8%, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Effects of starting point of scanning on the lens dose

Discussion

As pointed out in ICRP publication 103,7 some recent studies on radiation lens injuries have indicated much lower dose thresholds than specified by the current radiation-protection guidelines. In a study conducted on atomic bomb survivors by Nakashima et al,2 the threshold doses for cortical cataract and posterior subcapsular cataract were 0.6 Sv and 0.7 Sv, respectively.2 In another study of atomic bomb survivors, Neriishi et al3 reported that the dose threshold was 0.1 Gy for postoperative cataracts. As for protracted radiation exposures, Worgul et al6 investigated cataracts in Chernobyl clean-up workers. Their data indicated that the cumulative dose threshold for cataracts was <700 mGy. Other recent studies of radiation cataracts in airline pilots and astronauts also supported much lower dose thresholds for cataracts than do the guidelines.12,13

Furthermore, the lens of a child is more sensitive to radiation exposure than that of an adult.2,14,15 Wilde and Sjöstrand14 reported a clinical study of radiation-induced lens injuries among patients receiving radium irradiation to treat hemangioma in the eyelid in early childhood (age range, 1.5–13 months). In 13 of 16 untreated eyes with irradiation of 0.04–0.12 Gy, posterior subcapsular opacities (n = 12) or posterior subcapsular cataract (n = 1) was found.

In the current study with multidetector row CT, the lens doses during 1 series of whole-brain CT scans were 50–100 mGy. Considering the data of the above-mentioned recent studies, the cumulative lens doses of several series of CT scans should not be neglected from the viewpoint of radiologic protection. In fact, a population-based study of common age-related eye disease by Klein et al in 199316 showed that nuclear sclerosis and posterior subcapsular opacity were significantly associated with CT scans of the head. Another study of radiation cataracts indicated a significant association between a history of ≥3 diagnostic x-rays to the face or neck and increased risk of cataract.17

The lens dose during brain CT is affected by the type of CT scanner and the scanning settings. Therefore, it is important to estimate the lens dose during brain CT in individual cases in each institution. Bauhs et al10 reported that the CTDI can be used theoretically to estimate the average dose from multiple scans with table increments. However, the dose is not constant along the z-axis in the scanning range of whole-brain CT. During whole-brain CT by using axial scanning, multiple axial scans are needed to cover the scanning range. The dose profile along the z-axis has multiple peaks, according to the number of axial scans.10 Even with helical scanning, the doses near the starting and end points are lower than the dose of the central portion of the scan range along the z-axis. Scatter radiation exists outside the beam width both cranially and caudally. The central portion is exposed by both cranial and caudal scatter radiation. On the other hand, the starting or end point of the scanning receives either cranial or caudal scatter radiation. Furthermore, bow-tie filters affect the dose distribution in the x-y plane.

According to the data of Avilés Lucas et al,11 surface dose decreases as the measurement point moves vertically away from the scanning center. In their study, the surface doses were 83% and 62% at 8 and 12 cm from the scanning center, respectively, compared with the dose at 2.9 cm. Moreover, the homogeneous polymethylmetacrylate phantom for CTDI measurement does not simulate the different tissue types and heterogeneities of a real patient.18 Therefore, CTDI does not generally serve as an accurate estimate of the radiation dose to a point in a real patient, though it is an index of radiation dose due to CT scans.

In the current study, the ratios of lens dose to CTDIvol were 80.6%–103.4%, and the lens doses tended to be smaller than the CTDIvols during whole-brain CT including the orbit. As mentioned above, scatter radiation decreases at the starting point of the scanning, and the peripheral dose is decreased by the bow-tie filter in the x-y plane. Therefore, the lens doses during the whole-brain CT were probably smaller than the CTDIvols. When the orbits were included in the scanning range, the differences between the lens dose and CTDIvol were within 20% for both helical and axial scans with each CT scanner, with this degree of difference being acceptable for clinical use. Therefore, the lens dose can be estimated approximately by the CTDIvol, when the orbit is included in the scanning range. This method is useful to easily estimate the patient's lens dose during brain CT on the basis of CTDIvol because the values of CTDIvol are displayed on the monitors immediately after the scanning.

The lens doses decreased as the starting points were set more superiorly. The ratios of lens dose to CTDIvol were 10%–20% when the scanning started from the superior orbital rim. These results are in agreement with the work of Smith et al in 1998,19 who measured weighted CTDI values and lens doses during brain CT on phantoms by using single-detector row CT scanners. On the basis of their data, we calculated the ratio of lens doses to weighted CTDIs. The ratio was calculated as 88.4 ± 12.7% during scanning including the whole orbit (baseline: orbitomeatal line or infraorbitomeatal line), while it was 13.9 ± 4.8% during scanning excluding the orbit (baseline: supraorbitomeatal line).

Considering the lens dose during brain CT scans and the above-mentioned uncertainty about the risk of radiation lens injuries, we believe that the exposure to the lens during brain CT scans should be optimized. For dose reduction, it is fundamental to decrease CTDIvol by optimal selection of scanning parameters. However, this method has a limit, given the proposed reference level for brain CT, which was 60 mGy by the ICRP.20 There are several additional methods to reduce the lens dose during brain CT. In the follow-up CT scans for patients without lesions in the posterior cranial fossa, exclusion of the posterior cranial fossa from the scanning range results in reduced lens dose if the orbitomeatal line is used as a baseline. The lens can be excluded from the scanning range by using a more angulated baseline than the orbitomeatal line, even when the posterior cranial fossa is scanned.9,21 Eye masks such as a bismuth-coated latex shield are also useful to reduce the lens exposure.22,23 Improvement in the CT scanner would also be desirable. With automatic tube-current modulation in the x-y plane, decreased anteroposterior exposure with increased posteroanterior exposure should reduce the lens dose, while maintaining the image quality.

This study has some limitations. First, we used only 1 type of human-shaped phantom. The size and shape of the objects, especially the distance from the scanning center to the lens, may affect the surface dose. However, the sizes of adult heads have small individual differences. According to the data obtained on adult Japanese by Demura et al,24 the mean head lengths were 23.3 ± 1.2 cm and 21.8 ± 0.9 cm in men and women, respectively. Second, the CTDIvol values during brain CT vary among institutions, even with the same type of CT scanner because they are affected by the scanning parameters selected. However, CTDIvol values in the current study agreed with previous survey data. The weighted CTDI was 50.0 ± 14.6 mGy (dose range, 21.0–130 mGy) in the United Kingdom as reported by Shrimpton et al,25 while the average CTDIvols were 72.2 mGy for adults and 42.0 mGy for 5- to 7-year-old children in Australia, according to Moss and McLean.26 Therefore, the results of the current study can be adapted to many conditions.

Third, CTDIvol provides the estimate of the lens dose during brain CT only when the orbit is included in the scanning range. However, the lens dose during brain CT including the orbit is larger than that during brain CT excluding the orbit, and dose estimation is more important for the former. Fourth, the precise risk of radiation lens injuries for brain CT is still unknown. As for the risk of radiation lens injuries at a low dose, available studies are limited at present, and many of them were conducted on atomic bomb survivors.2–5 The beam quality and dose rate differ between the exposure to patients undergoing brain CT and the exposure to the objects in these studies, and the differences will affect the risk. Future risk assessment of radiation lens injuries for diagnostic x-rays is desirable.

In conclusion, CTDIvol can be used to estimate the lens dose during brain CT scanning, when the orbit is included in the scanning range. It is important to estimate the dose to the lens during brain CT scans and try to reduce it.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991;21:1–201
    FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Nakashima E,
    2. Neriishi K,
    3. Minamoto A
    . A reanalysis of atomic-bomb cataract data, 2000–2002: a threshold analysis. Health Phys 2006;90:154–60
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Neriishi K,
    2. Nakashima E,
    3. Minamoto A,
    4. et al
    . Postoperative cataract cases among atomic bomb survivors: radiation dose response and threshold. Radiat Res 2007;168:404–08
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Minamoto A,
    2. Taniguchi H,
    3. Yoshitani N,
    4. et al
    . Cataract in atomic bomb survivors. Int J Radiat Biol 2004;80:339–45
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Otake M,
    2. Neriishi K,
    3. Schull WJ
    . Cataract in atomic bomb survivors based on a threshold model and the occurrence of severe epilation. Radiat Res 1996;146:339–48
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Worgul BV,
    2. Kundiyev YI,
    3. Sergiyenko NM,
    4. et al
    . Cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers: implications regarding permissible eye exposures. Radiat Res 2007;167:233–43
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 159– 171
  8. 8.↵
    1. Jones TR,
    2. Kaplan RT,
    3. Lane B,
    4. et al
    . Single- versus multi-detector row CT of the brain: quality assessment. Radiology 2001;219:750–55
    PubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Yeoman LJ,
    2. Howarth L,
    3. Britten A,
    4. et al
    . Gantry angulation in brain CT: dosage implications, effect on posterior fossa artifacts, and current international practice. Radiology 1992;184:113–16
    PubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bauhs JA,
    2. Vrieze TJ,
    3. Primak AN,
    4. et al
    . CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. Radiographics 2008;28:245–53
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Avilés Lucas P,
    2. Castellano IA,
    3. Dance DR,
    4. et al
    . Analysis of surface dose variation in CT procedures. Br J Radiol 2001;74:1128–36
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Rafnsson V,
    2. Olafsdottir E,
    3. Hrafnkelsson J,
    4. et al
    . Cosmic radiation increases the risk of nuclear cataract in airline pilots: a population-based case-control study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:1102–05
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cucinotta FA,
    2. Manuel FK,
    3. Jones J,
    4. et al
    . Space radiation and cataracts in astronauts. Radiat Res 2001;156:460–66
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Wilde G,
    2. Sjöstrand J
    . A clinical study of radiation cataract formation in adult life following gamma irradiation of the lens in early childhood. J Ophthalmol 1997;81:261–66
  15. 15.↵
    1. Chen WL,
    2. Hwang JS,
    3. Hu TH,
    4. et al
    . Lenticular opacities in populations exposed to chronic low-dose-rate gamma radiation from radiocontaminated buildings in Taiwan. Radiat Res 2001;156:71–77
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Klein BE,
    2. Klein R,
    3. Linton KL,
    4. et al
    . Diagnostic x-ray exposure and lens opacities: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Am J Public Health 1993;83:588–90
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Chodick G,
    2. Bekiroglu N,
    3. Hauptmann M,
    4. et al
    . Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:620–31
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. McNitt-Gray MF
    . AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT—radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 2002;22:1541–53
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Smith A,
    2. Shah GA,
    3. Kron T
    . Variation of patient dose in head CT. Br J Radiol 1998;71:1296–301
    Abstract
  20. 20.↵
    Task Group on Control of Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography. Managing patient dose in computed tomography: a report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2000; 30: 7– 45
    PubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lai KF,
    2. Cheung YK,
    3. Tan CB,
    4. et al
    . Lens exclusion in computed tomography scans of the brain: the local practice. J HK Coll Radiol 2001;4:181–84
  22. 22.↵
    1. Perisinakis K,
    2. Raissaki M,
    3. Theocharopoulos N,
    4. et al
    . Reduction of eye lens radiation dose by orbital bismuth shielding in pediatric patients undergoing CT of the head: a Monte Carlo study. Med Phys 2005;32:1024–30
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hopper KD,
    2. Neuman JD,
    3. King SH,
    4. et al
    . Radioprotection to the eye during CT scanning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:1194–98
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Demura S,
    2. Yamaji S,
    3. Nakada M,
    4. et al
    . Prediction equation for head volume of Japanese young adults. J Sports Sci 2005;23:541–48
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Shrimpton PC,
    2. Jones DG,
    3. Hillier MC,
    4. et al
    . Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2. Dosimetric aspects. In: National Radiological Protection Board, Report NRPB-R 249. London, UK: HMSO; 1991
  26. 26.↵
    1. Moss M,
    2. McLean D
    . Paediatric and adult computed tomography practice and patient dose in Australia. Australas Radiol 2006;50:33–40
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received June 15, 2009.
  • Accepted after revision October 1, 2009.
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 31 (5)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 31, Issue 5
1 May 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Lens Exposure during Brain Scans Using Multidetector Row CT Scanners: Methods for Estimation of Lens Dose
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
S. Suzuki, S. Furui, T. Ishitake, T. Abe, H. Machida, R. Takei, K. Ibukuro, A. Watanabe, T. Kidouchi, Y. Nakano
Lens Exposure during Brain Scans Using Multidetector Row CT Scanners: Methods for Estimation of Lens Dose
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2010, 31 (5) 822-826; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1946

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Lens Exposure during Brain Scans Using Multidetector Row CT Scanners: Methods for Estimation of Lens Dose
S. Suzuki, S. Furui, T. Ishitake, T. Abe, H. Machida, R. Takei, K. Ibukuro, A. Watanabe, T. Kidouchi, Y. Nakano
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2010, 31 (5) 822-826; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1946
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abbreviations
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref (28)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Imaging Evidence and Recommendations for Traumatic Brain Injury: Conventional Neuroimaging Techniques
    Max Wintermark, Pina C. Sanelli, Yoshimi Anzai, A. John Tsiouris, Christopher T. Whitlow, T. Jason Druzgal, Alisa D. Gean, Yvonne W. Lui, Alexander M. Norbash, Cyrus Raji, David W. Wright, Michael Zeineh
    Journal of the American College of Radiology 2015 12 2
  • Bismuth Shielding, Organ-based Tube Current Modulation, and Global Reduction of Tube Current for Dose Reduction to the Eye at Head CT
    Jia Wang, Xinhui Duan, Jodie A. Christner, Shuai Leng, Katharine L. Grant, Cynthia H. McCollough
    Radiology 2012 262 1
  • Ocular Anatomy and Cross-Sectional Imaging of the Eye
    Ajay Malhotra, Frank J. Minja, Alison Crum, Delilah Burrowes
    Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 2011 32 1
  • Lens Dose in Routine Head CT: Comparison of Different Optimization Methods With Anthropomorphic Phantoms
    Ulla Nikupaavo, Touko Kaasalainen, Vappu Reijonen, Sanna-Mari Ahonen, Mika Kortesniemi
    American Journal of Roentgenology 2015 204 1
  • Patient radiation biological risk in computed tomography angiography procedure
    M. Alkhorayef, E. Babikir, A. Alrushoud, H. Al-Mohammed, A. Sulieman
    Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 2017 24 2
  • Radiation dose and risk to the lens of the eye during CT examinations of the brain
    Rebekah Poon, Mohamed K Badawy
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 2019 63 6
  • Estimation of radiation-induced cataract and cancer risks during routine CT head procedures
    M. Alkhorayef, A. Sulieman, B. Alonazi, M. Alnaaimi, M. Alduaij, D. Bradley
    Radiation Physics and Chemistry 2019 155
  • Cataract Formation and Low-Dose Radiation Exposure from Head Computed Tomography (CT) Scans in Ontario, Canada, 1994–2015
    Katherine Gaudreau, Christopher Thome, Bruce Weaver, Douglas R. Boreham
    Radiation Research 2020 193 4
  • Dose reduction and image quality in CT angiography for cerebral aneurysm with various tube potentials and current settings
    K Imai, M Ikeda, C Kawaura, T Aoyama, Y Enchi, M Yamauchi
    The British Journal of Radiology 2012 85 1017
  • Radioprotection of eye lens using protective material in neuro cone-beam computed tomography: Estimation of dose reduction rate and image quality
    Satoru Kawauchi, Koichi Chida, Takashi Moritake, Yusuke Hamada, Wataro Tsuruta
    Physica Medica 2021 82

More in this TOC Section

  • Safety of Intrathecal Gadobutrol in Various Doses
  • Impact of Kidney Function on CNS Gadolinium Deposition in Patients Receiving Repeated Doses of Gadobutrol
  • Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Radiologic Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Emergency Setting
Show more PATIENT SAFETY

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire