Comparison of the Breast Dose based on the Existence of the Bismuth Breast Protection Shield for Automatic Exposure Control and Manual Exposure Control with the Coronary Artery CT Angiography Kim, Sang-Tae; Kang, Sang-Koo; Kim, Chong-Yeal;
The effective dose and the organ absorbed dose, which are given to a breast in the cases of using and not using the bismuth breast protection shield for the protection of a breast with the coronary artery CT angiography, have been measured and compared for the manual exposure control (MEC)and the automatic exposure control (AEC). In the cases of using and not using the bismuth breast protection shield, it has been found that the measured dose shows the reduction of about 23 to 26% for the MEC and about 22 to 25% for the AEC when the shield is used compared to the case of not using it. By comparing the shield and non-shield cases for the AEC and the MEC, it can be said that the value measured by carrying out the scanning process with the AEC mode has decreased by about 24 to 30% compared to the case of applying the MEC mode. Such a result shows that it is recommended to use the AEC mode for the reduction of the patient's exposure dose during the CT examination.
coronary artery CT angiography;bismuth breast shield;MEC;AEC;breast dose;
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No.93, 1987.
P.C. Shrimpton, B.F. Wall, "The Increasing Importance of X ray Computed Tomography as a Source of Medical Exposure," Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 57(1-4), 1995, pp.413-415.
A. Almen, S. Mattsson, "On The Calculation of Effective Dose to Children and Adolescents," J. Radiol. Prot., 16, 1996, pp.81-89.
P.C. Shrimpton, S. Edyvean, "CT Scanner Dosimetry," Br. J. Radiol., 71, 1998, pp.1-3.
HPA, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of UK Population : Review, HPA-RPD-001, 2005.
M.T. Crawley, A.T. Rogers, "A Comparison of Computed Tomography Practice in 1989 and 1991," Br. J. Radiol., 67, 1994, pp.872-876.
B.F. Wall, D. Hatt, "Revised Radiation Doses for Typical X-ray Examinations. Report on a Recent Review of Doses to Patients from Medical X-ray Examinations in the UK by NRPB," Br. J. Radiol., 70, 1997, pp.437-439.
J. Zoetelief, J. Geleijns, "Patient Doses in Spiral CT," Br. J. Radiol., 71, 1998, pp.584-586.
ICRP, Managing Patient Dose in Computed Tomography, International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 87, 2001.
ICRP, Managing Patient Dose in Multi-Detector Tomography (MDCT), International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 102, 2007.
EC, European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, Report EUR 16262 EN, 1999.
P.C. Shrimpton, D.G. Jones, M.C. Hillier et al., Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: Dosimetric aspects, NRPB-R249, 1991.
ICRP, 2007 Recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 103, Annals of the ICRP 37, pp.2-4, 2007.
V. Tsapaki, J.E. Aldrich, R. Sharma et al. "Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: Diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT -IAEA Coordinated Research Project," Radiology, 240, 2006, pp.828-834.
P.C. Shrimpton, M.C. Hillier, M.A. Lewis et al., Doses from Computed Tomography (CT) Examinations in the UK -2003 Review, NRPB-W67, 2005.
G. Bongartz, S.J. Golding, A.G. Jurik et al., European Guidelines for Multislice Computed Tomography, European Commission, 2004.
K.D. Hopper, S.H. King, M.E. Lobell et al., "The breast: in-plane x-ray protection during diagnostic thoracic CTshielding with bismuth radioprotective garments," Radiology, 205, 1997, pp.853-858.