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.

OtherPHYSICS REVIEW

Radiation Dose-Reduction Strategies for Neuroradiology CT Protocols

A.B. Smith, W.P. Dillon, R. Gould and M. Wintermark
American Journal of Neuroradiology October 2007, 28 (9) 1628-1632; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0814
A.B. Smith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W.P. Dillon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Gould
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Wintermark
  • 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

SUMMARY: Within the past 2 decades, the number of CT examinations performed has increased almost 10-fold. This is in large part due to advances in multidetector-row CT technology, which now allows faster image acquisition and improved isotropic imaging. The increased use, along with multidetector technique, has led to a significantly increased radiation dose to the patient from CT studies. This places increased responsibility on the radiologist to ensure that CT examinations are indicated and that the “as low as reasonably achievable” concept is adhered to. Neuroradiologists are familiar with factors that affect patient dose such as pitch, milliamperes, kilovolt peak (kVp), collimation, but with increasing attention being given to dose reduction, they are looking for additional ways to further reduce the radiation associated with their CT protocols. In response to increasing concern, CT manufacturers have developed dose-reduction tools, such as dose modulation, in which the tube current is adjusted along with the CT acquisition, according to patient's attenuation. This review will describe the available techniques for reducing dose associated with neuroradiologic CT imaging protocols.

The increase in the number of CT studies in the United States and Europe1,2 that followed the introduction of multidetector-row technology has led to a significant increase in the radiation dose related to CT scanning.3–6 CT scanning comprises approximately 15% of radiologic examinations but represents the largest single source of medical radiation exposure, accounting for up to 70% of the radiation dose to patients.7 Patients are becoming more aware of the radiation dose related to CT scanning due to increasing coverage in the lay press.8 The radiation risk to children is of particular concern; the estimated lifetime cancer risk for a 1-year-old child from the radiation exposure of a head CT is 0.07%.9

The potential health risks associated with radiation have placed increasing pressure on the radiology community to ensure that CT imaging protocols are optimized for diagnostic image quality at the lowest radiation dose possible (“as low as reasonably achievable”). Because the latest generation of CT scanners automatically records the CT dose for each study and archives this as part of the patient's permanent medical record, exaggerated delays in implementing dose-reduction strategies may also have medical-legal implications. The purpose of this review is to discuss available methods to achieve dose reduction for neuroradiology CT protocols while preserving the diagnostic quality of imaging studies.

CT-Associated Radiation-Dose Measurement

In 2001, in response to the growing concern over CT-associated radiation dose, the US Food and Drug Administration published guidelines to address this issue, especially in pediatric patients and in the small-adult population. These guidelines give recommendations on how to optimize CT protocols and encourage the elimination of inappropriate referrals for CT as well as the reduction of the number of unnecessary repeat examinations.10 Along the same lines, the American College of Radiology (ACR) established a voluntary CT accreditation program. Institutions that apply are invited to complete a series of protocols and to submit patient and phantom images, along with dose measurements, to show that they abide by ACR dose recommendations.11

To understand the radiation dose a patient receives for a particular scan, one must have knowledge of the methods of dose measurement. Multiple dose descriptors have been used in the past. Currently, the Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI), along with its variants, and the Dose Length Product (DLP) are the standard parameters used to describe CT-associated radiation dose.

Different versions of the CTDI have been used. Historically, the CTDI was initially defined as the radiation dose measured from 14 contiguous sections and normalized to beam width and took into account the radiation dose delivered both within and beyond the scanning volume. Indeed, scattered radiation, divergence of radiation beam, and limits in efficiency of beam collimation result in the radiation delivered during a CT scan not fully contained within the scanning volume. The CTDI100 was developed to address the limitation of the 14-section model and allowed calculation of the index for 100 mm along the length of a pencil ionization chamber. The weighted CTDI (CTDIw) was subsequently developed to overcome the limitations of dependency on position within the scanning plane and represents a dose index that provides a weighted average of central and peripheral contributions within the scanning plane. The CTDIw describes the average dose throughout a 100-mm-diameter circular phantom, adding up the central dose weighted by a one-third factor and the peripheral dose weighted by a two-thirds factor. The most recent and presently used version is the volumetric CTDI (CTDIvol), which was introduced to take into account the pitch of helical acquisition. The CTDIvol represents the average dose delivered within the reconstructed section and is calculated as the CTDIw divided by the pitch.12,13

The DLP is the CTDIvol multiplied by the scanning length expressed in centimeters. It gives an indication of the energy imparted to organs and can be used to assess overall radiation burden associated with a CT study. CT scanners now routinely record the CTDIvol, and, in some cases, the DLP. Although the CTDIvol is not the dose to a specific patient, it is an index of the average radiation dose from the different CT series.1,12,13

The ACR guidelines set reference values for CTDI on the basis of reports from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the International Commission on Radiologic Protection. For instance, for a head CT in an adult patient, the recommended CTDIw is 60 mGy. If this dose is exceeded, measures need to be taken to reduce the patient dose.11

CT Acquisition Parameters and Dose Reduction

The setting of CT parameters such as tube current, tube rotation time, peak voltage, pitch, and collimation is a major contributor to the radiation dose received during a CT study. Typically, if one of these parameters is decreased, another needs to be increased to maintain image quality. Developing methods for dose reduction for CT protocols consequently takes a team effort of physicist, radiologist, and technician to determine the best compromise between diagnostic image quality and radiation dose.14

The initial approach to optimizing dose is to determine what information is desired from an examination and the associated minimum level of contrast to noise that is acceptable for diagnostic purposes. If lesser contrast is required and greater noise can be tolerated, then a lower tube current (and lower milliamperes) should be used. Tube current is directly proportional to dose; therefore, tube current reduction will result in a lower dose but at a cost of increased noise, which is increased by 1/√(mA). Gantry rotation time also has a similar effect on radiation dosage, and reducing the gantry rotation time by half leads to the same results in dose as reducing the milliampere by half. This can be advantageous when a quicker acquisition is needed, for instance in unstable patients.14 Of note, decreasing the gantry rotation time is not a panacea because it may unfavorably impact on the spatial resolution. Indeed, as explained previously, decreasing the gantry rotation time has to be compensated by an increase in milliamperes to maintain the milliamperes at a constant level. Increasing the milliamperes above a certain value (300–350) will typically result in the CT scanner switching from the small to the large focal spot, resulting in decreased spatial resolution.

Decreasing the peak voltage can also result in a lower dose (proportional to the square of the tube voltage change) as long as the tube current is not increased to compensate.14 However, decreasing the peak voltage often reduces significantly x-ray penetration, especially through bony structures such as the skull, and requires a significant increase in milliamperes to counterbalance this reduction in x-ray penetration, resulting in an overall increased radiation dose. For this reason, it is preferable to use a high kilovolt peak (kVp) (120 or 140 kVp) technique, except in specific applications such as perfusion CT, in which 80 kVp is typically used combined with low milliamperes (typically 100) because this combination affords increased contrast (closer to the K-edge for iodine), whereas radiation dose is reduced.15

Helical pitch, which describes the advancement of the scanning plane through the patient's body, is inversely related to dose when all other factors are held constant. A higher pitch results in a decreased amount of time that an anatomic part is exposed to radiation. By increasing the pitch, the dose to the patient is decreased; however, volume averaging is increased due to an increase in effective section thickness, and spatial resolution along the z-axis is slightly decreased. Lower pitch results in higher image quality but longer scanning time and higher patient dose.1 For practically all our neuroradiology CT studies, a pitch slightly inferior to 1 is used. For our CTAs of the cervical and intracranial arteries, a pitch slightly superior to 1 (at least on our 4-, 8-, and 16-section CT scanners) allows further reduction of the radiation dose while maintaining an acceptable image quality. For CTA examinations that focus on intracranial vessels for aneurysm screening, a pitch slightly inferior to 1 is optimal to improve spatial resolution along the z-axis and to acquire as close to isotropic datasets as possible for improved multiplanar reconstructions.

On multidetector CT scanners, the radiation profile width is influenced by the collimation. An “overbeaming” effect results from the x-ray beam extending beyond the edge of detector rows, exposing the patient to greater radiation dose. Thicker collimation decreases this effect, whereas a narrower degree of collimation results in a greater penumbral effect, more overbeaming, and, therefore, a higher radiation dose to the patient. The CTDIw can increase by as much as 55% in a head phantom when narrower beam collimation is used.12 Prepatient tracking is a method introduced by the manufacturers to decrease the effect of overbeaming. With this technique, overbeaming is reduced by measurement of the beam position every few milliseconds and repositioning of the source aperture to keep a narrow beam focused on the detector.1

As a general rule of the thumb, collimation should be set to acquire images as thin as one may be interested (now or later), but realizing the potential cost in dose. Typically, thin collimation (0.625 mm) and thin (and overlapped) reconstructions (0.625 mm) are used for those techniques that require high spatial detail, such as intracranial CTA or CT of the cervical spine, where the highest spatial resolution is sought to detect small aneurysms or subtle fractures. At the other end of the spectrum, thin collimation (0.625 mm) and thicker reconstruction (and again overlapped) images (2.5 mm) may be best used for CT studies of the lumbar spine. This “acquire thin and view thick” strategy is very dose-efficient because whereas the display images will be thick, low acquisition parameters can be used for the acquisition. The source images will be noisy, but the thick images used for review will not; and the source images with higher spatial resolution will be available if required to interpret an unresolved finding on the thick review images and as source images for 2D and 3D reformats. This “acquire thin and review thick” approach is not only efficient in terms of radiation dose but also improves workflow because fewer images need to be reviewed.

CT Dose Modulation

Many of the dose-reduction strategies described previously result in a trade-off of image quality. For example, if tube current or voltage is reduced, the radiation dose is reduced, but so is image quality. CT manufacturers have tried to come up with new technologies that can reduce dose without significantly compromising imaging quality. One of these techniques is dose modulation.

Dose modulation is a technique by which the CT scanner modifies the tube current in response to the patient's attenuation, to maintain the same image quality for the least possible tube current. Dose modulation can be performed in the z-axis where tube current changes along the length of the patient, in the xy-plane (angular modification), or can be a combination of the 2 (xyz–dose modulation). Recent studies demonstrated that dose modulation is capable of providing a reduction in radiation dose without significant image compromise,16–20 including for neuroradiology CT protocols, where up to 60% dose reduction was achieved for noncontrast CT of the brain in adult and pediatric patients; for CT studies of the cervical spine; and for CTA studies.21

Implementation of dose modulation requires a team effort between radiologists, technicians, and physicists, who have to select a preset noise index (NI) that describes the level of noise acceptable to the radiologist for a given CT examination. The CT scanner then automatically selects, within a preset range, the tube current (milliampere) required to maintain the level of noise under the noise index, taking into consideration the patient's attenuation. Identification of optimal signal intensity-to-noise ratio for each type of CT protocol requires fine-tuning to lower the milliamperes as much as possible while preserving image quality. When we transitioned to dose modulation, we initially set the NI at a low value (as recommended by the manufacturer) and progressively increased it until the image quality was deemed insufficient. This decision was a consensus decision by the 9 faculty members of our neuroradiology section.

Image Postprocessing as an Additional Consideration for Dose Reduction

Isotropic resolution afforded by modern multidetector row CT scanners allows high-quality image reconstruction and can help diminish the number of scans needed, thus reducing patient dose. Previously, we used to acquire both axial and direct coronal images for our sinus CT studies. We now acquire the images in helical mode in the axial plane with a section thickness of 0.625 mm and reconstruct them in the coronal plane. Our ear, nose, and throat surgeons have been satisfied with the diagnostic quality, and the patients undergo 1 scanning instead of 2. Likewise, we reformat our CT angiograms into the coronal and sagittal planes, and we reconstruct the axial planes into a thicker section thickness to decrease the noise within the images. If questions arise concerning more subtle findings, we are able to use the thinner section thickness to help differentiate the presence or absence of an abnormality, such as an aneurysm. Maximal image projections can be used for evaluation of structures such as vessels, and 3D reformations can further help define structures.

Other postprocessing techniques such as retroprojection filters and noise-reduction filters have been introduced by manufacturers to assist in improving image quality for already-acquired images.22,23 Their usefulness in terms of neuroradiology CT protocols is mainly for CTA of the cervical vessels at the level of the shoulders and whenever there is metallic hardware that is responsible for significant beam-hardening effect.

Conclusion

CT scanners are a major contributor to the radiation dose received in radiology departments. There are many strategies available to reduce the radiation dose associated with neuroradiology CT protocols. Some of these strategies involve changes in the acquisition parameters (kVp, gantry rotation time, milliampere, pitch). Such strategies, however, always involve a compromise between image quality and radiation dose. The optimal compromise can usually be achieved by applying simple rules of thumb (such as “acquire thin and review thick”). More recently, CT manufacturers have introduced techniques of dose reduction, such as dose modulation, which result in a decrease in dose to patients without significant image compromise. As such, we recommend the systematic implementation of dose modulation for all neuroradiology CT protocols.

Appendix

In this appendix are listed our neuroradiology CT protocols for our 64-section CT scanners (Lightspeed VCT; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wis). These are to serve as an illustration of our dose-reduction strategies described in the body of the review.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Standard CT studies of the brain

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Stroke CT protocol

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Subarachnoid hemorrhage and venous thrombosis CT protocolsa

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Orbit, face, and sinus CT protocols

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Temporal bone CT protocol

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Neck CT protocol

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Cervical spine CT protocol

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Thoracic and lumbar spine CT protocol

References

  1. ↵
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–28
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345–51
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Imhof H, Schibany N, Ba-Ssalamah A, et al. Spiral CT and radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2003;47:29–37
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Muller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003;228:15–21
    PubMed
  5. Wiest PW, Locken JA, Heintz PH, et al. CT scanning: a major source of radiation exposure. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2002;23:402–10
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Aroua A, Burnand B, Decka I, et al. Nation-wide survey on radiation doses in diagnostic and interventional radiology in Switzerland in 1998. Health Phys 2002;83:46–55
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Linton OW, Mettler F Jr. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:321–29
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Associated Press (July 7, 2005). Low-Dose Radiation Levels Pose Cancer Risk. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/page/2/. Accessed December 15,2006
  9. ↵
    Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:289–96
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Feigal DW Jr. FDA public health notification: reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients. Int J Trauma Nurs 2002;8:1–2
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, McNitt-Gray MF, et al. The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) computed tomography (CT) accreditation program: practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. Med Phys 2004;31:2423–42
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT–radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 2002;22:1541–53
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Imhof H, Schibany N, Ba-Ssalamah A, et al. Spiral CT and radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2003;47:29–37
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Hamberg LM, Rhea JT, Hunter GJ, et al. Multi-detector row CT: radiation dose characteristics. Radiology 2003;226:762–72
    PubMed
  15. ↵
    Wintermark M, Maeder P, Verdun FR, et al. Using 80 kVp versus 120 kVp in perfusion CT measurement of regional cerebral blood flow. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1881–84
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Mastora I, Remy-Jardin M, Delannoy V, et al. Multi-detector row spiral CT angiography of the thoracic outlet: dose reduction with anatomically adapted online tube current modulation and preset dose savings. Radiology 2004;230:116–24
    PubMed
  17. Kalra MK, Rizzo S, Maher MM, et al. Chest CT performed with z-axis modulation: scanning protocol and radiation dose. Radiology 2005;237:303–08
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, et al. Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 2005;237:213–23
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Kalra MK, Maher MM, D'souza RV, et al. Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 2005;235:523–29
    PubMed
  20. ↵
    Namasivayam S, Kalra MK, Pottala KM, et al. Optimization of Z-axis automatic exposure control for multidetector row CT evaluation of neck and comparison with fixed tube current technique for image quality and radiation dose. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:2221–25
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Smith AB, Dillon WP, Lau BC, et al. Successful implementation of a radiation dose reduction strategy for CT protocols in a neuroradiology section. Radiology (in process)
  22. ↵
    Kalra MK, Wittram C, Maher MM, et al. Can noise reduction filters improve low-radiation-dose chest CT images? Pilot study. Radiology 2003;228:257–64
    PubMed
  23. ↵
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Sahani DV, et al. Low-dose CT of the abdomen: evaluation of image improvement with use of noise reduction filters: pilot study. Radiology 2003;228:251–56
    PubMed
  • Received July 19, 2007.
  • Accepted after revision August 7, 2007.
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 28 (9)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 28, Issue 9
October 2007
  • 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.
Radiation Dose-Reduction Strategies for Neuroradiology CT Protocols
(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
A.B. Smith, W.P. Dillon, R. Gould, M. Wintermark
Radiation Dose-Reduction Strategies for Neuroradiology CT Protocols
American Journal of Neuroradiology Oct 2007, 28 (9) 1628-1632; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0814

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
Radiation Dose-Reduction Strategies for Neuroradiology CT Protocols
A.B. Smith, W.P. Dillon, R. Gould, M. Wintermark
American Journal of Neuroradiology Oct 2007, 28 (9) 1628-1632; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0814
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • CT-Associated Radiation-Dose Measurement
    • CT Acquisition Parameters and Dose Reduction
    • CT Dose Modulation
    • Image Postprocessing as an Additional Consideration for Dose Reduction
    • Conclusion
    • Appendix
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Evolution from total variation to nonlinear sparsifying transform for sparse-view CT image reconstruction
  • Comparison of Iterative Model Reconstruction versus Filtered Back-Projection in Pediatric Emergency Head CT: Dose, Image Quality, and Image-Reconstruction Times
  • Cerebral CTA with Low Tube Voltage and Low Contrast Material Volume for Detection of Intracranial Aneurysms
  • Reply:
  • Effect of CTA Tube Current on Spot Sign Detection and Accuracy for Prediction of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Expansion
  • A Comparison of Sequential and Spiral Scanning Techniques in Brain CT
  • Radiation Doses of Cerebral Blood Volume Measurements Using C-Arm CT: A Phantom Study
  • Acute Intracranial Hemorrhage in CT: Benefits of Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction Techniques
  • Effects of Increased Image Noise on Image Quality and Quantitative Interpretation in Brain CT Perfusion
  • Can Iterative Reconstruction Improve Imaging Quality for Lower Radiation CT Perfusion? Initial Experience
  • Stroke and CT Perfusion
  • Lowering the Dose in Head CT Using Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction
  • FDA Investigates the Safety of Brain Perfusion CT
  • Sixty-Four-Section Multidetector CT Angiography of Carotid Arteries: A Systematic Analysis of Image Quality and Artifacts
  • Comparison of Image Quality and Radiation Dose between Fixed Tube Current and Combined Automatic Tube Current Modulation in Craniocervical CT Angiography
  • Theoretic Basis and Technical Implementations of CT Perfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke, Part 2: Technical Implementations
  • CT Radiation Dose for Computer-Assisted Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Dose Survey and Determination of Dose-Reduction Limits
  • Crossref (72)
  • Google Scholar

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

  • Adaptive-weighted total variation minimization for sparse data toward low-dose x-ray computed tomography image reconstruction
    Yan Liu, Jianhua Ma, Yi Fan, Zhengrong Liang
    Physics in Medicine and Biology 2012 57 23
  • Theoretic Basis and Technical Implementations of CT Perfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke, Part 2: Technical Implementations
    A.A. Konstas, G.V. Goldmakher, T.-Y. Lee, M.H. Lev
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2009 30 5
  • Emergency department visits, use of imaging, and drugs for urolithiasis have increased in the United States
    Chyng-Wen Fwu, Paul W. Eggers, Paul L. Kimmel, John W. Kusek, Ziya Kirkali
    Kidney International 2013 83 3
  • Standards for Detecting, Interpreting, and Reporting Noncontrast Computed Tomographic Markers of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Expansion
    Andrea Morotti, Gregoire Boulouis, Dar Dowlatshahi, Qi Li, Christen D. Barras, Candice Delcourt, Zhiyuan Yu, Jun Zheng, Zien Zhou, Richard I. Aviv, Ashkan Shoamanesh, Peter B. Sporns, Jonathan Rosand, Steven M. Greenberg, Rustam Al‐Shahi Salman, Adnan I. Qureshi, Andrew M. Demchuk, Craig S. Anderson, Joshua N. Goldstein, Andreas Charidimou
    Annals of Neurology 2019 86 4
  • Initial Performance Characterization of a Clinical Noise–Suppressing Reconstruction Algorithm for MDCT
    Peter B. Noël, Alexander A. Fingerle, Bernhard Renger, Daniela Münzel, Ernst J. Rummeny, Martin Dobritz
    American Journal of Roentgenology 2011 197 6
  • Radiation dose from multidetector row CT imaging for acute stroke
    Anisa Mnyusiwalla, Richard I. Aviv, Sean P. Symons
    Neuroradiology 2009 51 10
  • CT Protocol for Acute Stroke: Tips and Tricks for General Radiologists
    Enrique Marco de Lucas, Elena Sánchez, Agustín Gutiérrez, Andrés González Mandly, Eva Ruiz, Alejandro Fernández Flórez, Javier Izquierdo, Javier Arnáiz, Tatiana Piedra, Natalia Valle, Itziar Bañales, Fernando Quintana
    RadioGraphics 2008 28 6
  • Lowering the Dose in Head CT Using Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction
    K. Kilic, G. Erbas, M. Guryildirim, M. Arac, E. Ilgit, B. Coskun
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2011 32 9
  • FDA Investigates the Safety of Brain Perfusion CT
    M. Wintermark, M.H. Lev
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2010 31 1
  • Sixty-Four-Section Multidetector CT Angiography of Carotid Arteries: A Systematic Analysis of Image Quality and Artifacts
    J.J. Kim, W.P. Dillon, C.M. Glastonbury, J.M. Provenzale, M. Wintermark
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2010 31 1

More in this TOC Section

  • Theoretic Basis and Technical Implementations of CT Perfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke, Part 2: Technical Implementations
  • Theoretic Basis and Technical Implementations of CT Perfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke, Part 1: Theoretic Basis
  • Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging: Technical Aspects and Clinical Applications, Part 2
Show more PHYSICS REVIEW

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