Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:54:45.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 28 - Radiologic image formation: physical principles, technology, and radiation dose considerations

from Section V - Technical considerations and dosimetry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2015

By
Andrew Karellas  and
Srinivasan Vedantham
Edited by
Paul K. Kleinman
Andrew Karellas
Affiliation:
Director of Radiological Physics at UMass Memorial Health Care and Professor of Radiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
Srinivasan Vedantham
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology at UMass Memorial Health Care and Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
Paul K. Kleinman
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital Boston
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In this chapter certain fundamental aspects of radiologic image formation and technologies that are important for understanding the role of each imaging modality on the evaluation of suspected child abuse are described. The emphasis will be on x-ray imaging including digital radiography (DR), fluoroscopy, and computed tomography (CT), but the technologic aspects of nuclear imaging such as planar, single photon emission tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET) will also be discussed from the technologic and radiation dose point of view. Certain basic aspects of ultrasonography will be presented especially on how it relates to x-ray and nuclear imaging techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is covered in a separate chapter (see Chapter 29). This chapter is intended to provide an accurate description of the physics and engineering behind these imaging technologies that can be easily appreciated by nonradiologists, radiologists, and other health care providers who need to make decisions on the appropriate imaging procedure.

In recent years, medical imaging has undergone a dramatic transformation in the development of imaging hardware, software, and image acquisition techniques. Diagnostic imaging information, previously thought to be unattainable, is now a reality. This has resulted in an overall information yield and accuracy hitherto not imagined, and in a dramatic decrease in the number of surgical exploratory and treatment procedures. However, this rapid evolution has created disconnects between the capabilities of the techniques, their appropriate implementation, and full understanding by the referring physicians. As technology has evolved in capability and complexity, ordering the appropriate imaging test has become increasingly challenging. In view of the recent highly publicized concerns about radiation to children from medical imaging procedures, particularly from CT, selecting the appropriate imaging test requires careful consideration of the alternatives, including techniques that use the least amount of radiation (1–6). At this juncture, it is important for clinicians to have at least a basic understanding of the fundamental principles and the technology behind every imaging test.

Type
Chapter
Information
Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse , pp. 667 - 687
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Donnelly, LF, Emery, KH, Brody, AS, Laor, T, Gylys-Morin, VM, Anton, CG, et al. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large Children's Hospital. AJR. 2001;176(2):303–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frush, DP. Pediatric CT: practical approach to diminish the radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32(10):714–17; discussion 751–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenner, DJ, Hall, EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearce, MS, Salotti, JA, Little, MP, McHugh, K, Lee, C, Kim, KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380(9840):499–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathews, JD, Forsythe, AV, Brady, Z, Butler, MW, Goergen, SK, Byrnes, GB, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 2013;346:f2360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miglioretti, DL, Johnson, E, Williams, A, Greenlee, RT, Weinmann, S, Solberg, LI, et al. The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(8):700–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Don, S, Macdougall, R, Strauss, K, Moore, QT, Goske, MJ, Cohen, M, et al. Image gently campaign back to basics initiative: ten steps to help manage radiation dose in pediatric digital radiography. AJR. 2013;200(5):W431–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, EJ, Giaccia, AJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 7th edn. Baltimore MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2011.Google Scholar
Bushberg, JT, Seibert, JA, Leidholdt, EM, Boone, JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, 3rd edn. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2011.Google Scholar
Cherry, SR, Sorenson, JA, Phelps, ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine, 4th edn. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders; 2012.Google Scholar
Mettler, FA, Upton, AC. Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders; 2008.Google Scholar
Jacobi, W. The concept of the effective dose–a proposal for the combination of organ doses. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1975;12(2):101–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICRP. Recommendations of the ICRP. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP 1(3). Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1977.Google Scholar
ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP 37(2–4). Oxford: Pergamon Press; 2007.Google Scholar
Huda, W, Sandison, GA. The use of the effective dose equivalent, HE, as a risk parameter in computed tomography. Br J Radiol. 1986;59(708):1236–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huda, W, Bissessur, K. Effective dose equivalents, HE, in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys. 1990;17(6):998–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huda, W. Effective doses to adult and pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32(4):272–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theocharopoulos, N, Damilakis, J, Perisinakis, K, Tzedakis, A, Karantanas, A, Gourtsoyiannis, N. Estimation of effective doses to adult and pediatric patients from multislice computed tomography: a method based on energy imparted. Med Phys. 2006;33(10):3846–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huda, W, Vance, A. Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. AJR. 2007;188(2):540–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karmazyn, B, Liang, Y, Klahr, P, Jennings, SG. Effect of tube voltage on CT noise levels in different phantom sizes. AJR. 2013;200(5):1001–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, B, Ganguly, A, Kim, JE, Robinson, T. Comparison of different methods of calculating CT radiation effective dose in children. AJR. 2012;199(2):W232–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linet, MS, Slovis, TL, Miller, DL, Kleinerman, R, Lee, C, Rajaraman, P, et al. Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(2):75–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S, Yoshizumi, TT, Frush, DP, Toncheva, G, Yin, FF. Radiation dose from cone beam CT in a pediatric phantom: risk estimation of cancer incidence. AJR. 2010;194(1):186–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raelson, CA, Kanal, KM, Vavilala, MS, Rivara, FP, Kim, LJ, Stewart, BK, et al. Radiation dose and excess risk of cancer in children undergoing neuroangiography. AJR. 2009;193(6):1621–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alessio, AM, Kinahan, PE, Manchanda, V, Ghioni, V, Aldape, L, Parisi, MT. Weight-based, low-dose pediatric whole-body PET/CT protocols. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1570–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X, Samei, E, Segars, WP, Sturgeon, GM, Colsher, JG, Frush, DP. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk for pediatric chest CT. Radiology. 2011;259(3):862–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X, Samei, E, Segars, WP, Sturgeon, GM, Colsher, JG, Toncheva, G, et al. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part II. Application to patients. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):408–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenner, DJ. Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(967):521–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietze, G, Harrison, JD, Menzel, HG. Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Comments on a paper by D J Brenner (Br J Radiol 2008;81:521–3). Br J Radiol. 2009;82(976):348–50; author reply 350–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, RA, Di Chiro, G, Keller, MR. Explanation of cerebral white–gray contrast in computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1980;4(4):489–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaffe, MJ, Rowlands, JA. X-ray detectors for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42(1):1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowlands, JA. The physics of computed radiography. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47(23):R123–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fetterly, KA, Schueler, BA. Performance evaluation of a “dual-side read” dedicated mammography computed radiography system. Med Phys. 2003;30(7):1843–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivetti, S, Canossi, B, Battista, R, Lanconelli, N, Vetruccio, E, Danielli, C, et al. Physical and clinical comparison between a screen-film system and a dual-side reading mammography-dedicated computed radiography system. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(10):1109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedantham, S, Karellas, A. Modeling the performance characteristics of computed radiography (CR) systems. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29(3):790–806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinman, PL, Zurakowski, D, Strauss, KJ, Cleveland, RH, Perez-Rosello, JM, Nichols, DP, et al. Detection of simulated inflicted metaphyseal fractures in a fetal pig model: image optimization and dose reduction with computed radiography. Radiology. 2008;247(2):381–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmazyn, B, Lewis, ME, Jennings, SG, Hibbard, RA, Hicks, RA. The prevalence of uncommon fractures on skeletal surveys performed to evaluate for suspected abuse in 930 children: should practice guidelines change?AJR. 2011;197(1):W159–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewerdsen, JH, Antonuk, LE, el-Mohri, Y, Yorkston, J, Huang, W, Cunningham, IA. Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology. Med Phys. 1998;25(5):614–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vedantham, S, Karellas, A, Suryanarayanan, S, Albagli, D, Han, S, Tkaczyk, EJ, et al. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys. 2000;27(3):558–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neitzel, U. Management of pediatric radiation dose using Philips digital radiography. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34(Suppl. 3):S227–33; discussion S234–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowen, AR, Kengyelics, SM, Davies, AG. Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(5):487–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korner, M, Weber, CH, Wirth, S, Pfeifer, KJ, Reiser, MF, Treitl, M. Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview. Radiographics. 2007;27(3):675–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seibert, JA. Digital radiography: image quality and radiation dose. Health Phys. 2008;95(5):586–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacher, K, Smeets, P, Vereecken, L, De Hauwere, A, Duyck, P, De Man, R, et al. Image quality and radiation dose on digital chest imaging: comparison of amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium flat-panel systems. AJR. 2006;187(3):630–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertolini, M, Nitrosi, A, Rivetti, S, Lanconelli, N, Pattacini, P, Ginocchi, V, et al. A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency. Med Phys. 2012;39(5):2617–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samei, E, Murphy, S, Christianson, O. DQE of wireless digital detectors: comparative performance with differing filtration schemes. Med Phys. 2013;40(8):081910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivetti, S, Lanconelli, N, Bertolini, M, Nitrosi, A, Burani, A. Characterization of a clinical unit for digital radiography based on irradiation side sampling technology. Med Phys. 2013;40(10):101902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karellas, A, Vedantham, S. Detectors for digital mammography. In Whitman, GJ, Haygood, TM, eds. Digital Mammography – A Practical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Mahesh, M, Detorie, N, Strauss, KJ. ALARA in pediatric fluoroscopy. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4(12):931–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, MD. Optimizing the use of pulsed fluoroscopy to reduce radiation exposure to children. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5(3):205–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICRP, Khong, PL, Ringertz, H, Donoghue, V, Frush, D, Rehani, M, et al. ICRP Publication 121: Radiological Protection in Paediatric Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. Ann ICRP. 2013;42(2):1–63. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 2013.PubMed
Vedantham, S, Karellas, A, Suryanarayanan, S. Solid-state fluoroscopic imager for high-resolution angiography: parallel-cascaded linear systems analysis. Med Phys. 2004;31(5):1258–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vedantham, S, Karellas, A, Suryanarayanan, S, Onishi, SK. Solid-state fluoroscopic imager for high-resolution angiography: physical characteristics of an 8 cm × 8 cm experimental prototype. Med Phys. 2004;31(6):1462–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, A, Bednarek, DR, Rudin, S. Evaluation of the microangiographic fluoroscope (MAF) using generalized system performance metrics. Med Phys. 2013;40(3):031915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drubach, LA, Sapp, MV, Laffin, S, Kleinman, PK. Fluorine-18 NaF PET imaging of child abuse. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38(7):776–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drubach, LA, Johnston, PR, Newton, AW, Perez-Rossello, JM, Grant, FD, Kleinman, PK. Skeletal trauma in child abuse: detection with 18F-NaF PET. Radiology. 2010;255(1):173–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogdanich, W. Radiation overdoses point up dangers of CT scans. The New York Times (Oct. 15, 1999).
Goske, MJ, Strauss, KJ, Coombs, LP, Mandel, KE, Towbin, AJ, Larson, DB, et al. Diagnostic reference ranges for pediatric abdominal CT. Radiology. 2013;268(1):208–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shope, TB, Gagne, RM, Johnson, GC. A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 1981;8(4):488–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boone, JM. The trouble with CTD 100. Med Phys. 2007;34(4):1364–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, RL, Boone, JM. Analytical equations for CT dose profiles derived using a scatter kernel of Monte Carlo parentage with broad applicability to CT dosimetry problems. Med Phys. 2011;38(7):4251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCollough, CH, Leng, S, Yu, L, Cody, DD, Boone, JM, McNitt-Gray, MF. CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing. Radiology. 2011;259(2):311–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AAPM. The Measurement, Reporting and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Report No. 96, 2008. Available from .
Christner, JA, Kofler, JM, McCollough, CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR. 2010;194(4):881–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AAPM. Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examinations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Report No. 204, 2011. Available from .
Brady, SL, Kaufman, RA. Investigation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report 204 size-specific dose estimates for pediatric CT implementation. Radiology. 2012;265(3):832–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, JA, Morin, RL. Size-specific dose estimation for CT: how should it be used and what does it mean?Radiology. 2012;265(3):666–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AAPM. Comprehensive Methodology for the Evaluation of Radiation Dose in X-Ray Computed Tomography. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Report No. 111, 2010. Available from .
Christner, JA, Braun, NN, Jacobsen, MC, Carter, RE, Kofler, JM, McCollough, CH. Size-specific dose estimates for adult patients at CT of the torso. Radiology. 2012;265(3):841–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCollough, CH, Christner, JA, Kofler, JM. How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk?AJR. 2010;194(4):890–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boone, JM, Hendee, WR, McNitt-Gray, MF, Seltzer, SE. Radiation exposure from CT scans: how to close our knowledge gaps, monitor and safeguard exposure. Proceedings and recommendations of the Radiation Dose Summit, sponsored by NIBIB, February 24–25, 2011. Radiology. 2012;265(2):544–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Guideline for Skeletal Surveys in Children. Revised 2014 (Resolution 39). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2014:1–6. Available from .Google Scholar
American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. The American College of Radiology, May 2014. Available from .
Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging. Image Gently®, 2014. Available from .

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×