Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Article CommentaryCOMMENTARY

From Flatland to the Fourth Dimension

Christopher H. Marshall
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2006, 27 (8) 1746;
Christopher H. Marshall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

If this title evokes space travel rather than radiology, there is a parallel. How far we can go is in both cases limited by the effect of radiation on the human body.

Thirty years ago, radiology emerged from the flatland of 2D imaging when CT provided routine imaging with 3D spatial resolution. Multidetector CT now provides routine 4D imaging—by combining excellent 3D spatial with temporal resolution.

As a rough approximation, each new dimension has increased the patient dose penalty by an order of magnitude. Conventional radiographs are made with maximally exposed tissue doses in the 1–10-mSv range, but CT delivers a dose in the 10–100-mSv range. As an article by Cohnen1 attests, dynamic imaging with multidetector CT is now pushing maximally exposed tissue doses into the 100–1000-mSv range. Although this is still below the dose range where threshold effects are observed (if the fetus is excepted), it is within the range where there is unquestioned epidemiologic evidence that exposure of many tissues to X-radiation is associated with increased cancer incidence.2 At lower doses, cancer risk estimates are based on models that assume a linear relationship between risk and dose, which implies that the risk of any new exposure is independent of prior exposure. If so, there is no general need to consider past exposure to justify an additional low-dose procedure. The risk-dose models tend to depart from linearity in the higher dose range, however, and the potential for exceeding a dose threshold for a specific tissue as a result of repeated exposures is a concern if the accumulated dose is large enough and spread over a short enough time interval.

Cohnen’s article reports the highest localized doses to cerebral tissues and skin of about 400 mSv in simulations of computed tomography perfusion (CTP). They cite another3 article that associates the combination of CTP and angiography with observations of hair loss. It is most probable in the latter case that the greater part of the dose was received during angiography. Those who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures are generally aware that localized skin doses may exceed 1000 mSv,4 but, whereas fluoroscopy may deliver a large dose to skin, it gives less to the unseen deeper tissues. CT deposits relatively uniform doses to all tissues in each scan field and overlapping scan fields will be associated with larger tissue doses in the area of overlap.

The methods that are commonly used to describe dose have limited value if a specific tissue dose is a concern for an individual patient. Computed tomography dose index (CTDI) in its various forms characterizes dose to a centered plastic cylinder of fixed size. Its primary value is in comparing devices and techniques. CTDI values are commonly displayed on the console after a patient scan. While this is useful, the numbers so displayed are to a virtual phantom, and do not represent actual doses to the patient or to any specific tissue. Effective dose (the risk-weighted average dose to the body organs) is commonly used to compare diagnostic procedures to one another and to natural background exposures. Its validity rests on the questionable assumption that tissue risks are accurately known and are linearly related to dose. Its value is typically estimated from phantoms and mathematical models so it is only an approximate index of risk to an actual patient – and particularly so if specific tissues receive large doses. It would in fact be difficult to obtain information on dose to the specific tissues of specific patients in general, should medicine or society demand it.

Greater risks associated with higher tissue doses may well be justified if tangible medical benefits are realized by patients, but there are valid concerns about inappropriate use and repeated exposure of the same tissues. How the medical community deals with these issues may well determine how well society will accept the potential of the higher dose modalities. Educational programs should therefore re-emphasize both dose distribution and radiation biology if technology continues to push into the higher dose range. Curiously, such concepts may have been better instilled in the simpler technological days when training programs involved both the therapeutic and diagnostic applications of radiation, but the generations so trained are departing the scene, and a return to flatland is not an option.

References

  1. ↵
    Cohnen M, Wittsack HJ, Assadi S, et al. Radiation exposure of patients in comprehensive computed tomography of the head in acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1741–45
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    UNSCEAR. 2000. Report to the United Nations: sources and effects of ionizing radiation. New York: United Nations
  3. ↵
    Imanishi Y, Fukui A, Niimi H, et al. Radiation-induced temporary hair loss as a radiation damage only occurring in patients who had a combination of MDCT and DSA. Eur Radiol 2005;15:41–46
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Huda W, Peters KR. Radiation-induced temporary epilation after a neurologically guided embolization procedure. Radiology 1994;193:642–44
    PubMed
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 27 (8)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 27, Issue 8
September 2006
  • 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.
From Flatland to the Fourth Dimension
(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.
Citation Tools
From Flatland to the Fourth Dimension
Christopher H. Marshall
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2006, 27 (8) 1746;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
From Flatland to the Fourth Dimension
Christopher H. Marshall
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2006, 27 (8) 1746;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Time for a “Second Wave” of COVID-19 Data
  • Is Transradial Access a Replacement Technique for Transfemoral Access in Neurointervention?
  • Cerebral Venous Wall Diseases: The Other Side of the Picture
Show more COMMENTARY

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2020 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2021 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire