Cutting the dose: A new image reconstruction technique results in a better CT scan (bottom) of a human abdomen model than current algorithms (top). The new method uses an eighth of the radiation dose compared to current scans.
Girijesh Yadava, GE Healthcare

Biomedicine

Clear CT Scans with Less Radiation

Researchers are devising new ways to get the same results with fewer x-rays.

  • Monday, August 2, 2010
  • By Prachi Patel

Computed tomography --or CT--scans have become a powerful imaging tool for diagnosing disease. Health-care providers performed more than 70 million CT scans in the United States in 2007.

A December 2009 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine calculated that those 70 million scans could lead to 29,000 cancers. That figure is a statistical calculation and "there is no direct evidence linking the radiation dose from CT scans to cancer," says Cynthia McCollough, a radiological physicist at the Mayo Clinic. "Doses delivered in a CT scan are of the same magnitude that we get every year from background radiation." (A typical CT scan might result in a dose of one to 14 millisieverts. )

Nevertheless, the CT community is looking for ways to reduce the radiation dose from scanners. This is because CT scans are becoming more common, and because multiple scans are often required for some patients such as those suffering from head or spine trauma . Some promising techniques for reducing CT scan radiation were recently presented at the meeting of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine in Philadelphia.

Researchers at GE Healthcare in Waukesha, WI, presented a technique that needs roughly an eighth of the radiation dose of today's scanners to create an image just as sharp and with the same high resolution. "Dose reduction depends on a case-by-case basis and the application," lead scientist Girijesh Yadava says. "You could go lower or higher [than an eighth] depending on the part of body."

Advertisement

A CT scanner puts together multiple cross-sectional images to create a detailed picture of body structures. An x-ray tube rotates around the patient and directs beams into the body from different angles. After the rays pass through the body, their intensity is measured by an array of detectors on the other side. A computer algorithm then reconstructs images from the intensity data. Just as each light detector in a digital camera corresponds to an image pixel, each detector gives a voxel, or volume element, of the image.

Print

Related Articles

A Search Engine for the Human Body

Microsoft software recognizes organs and other structures in medical images.

Lighting Up Tumors

Surgical imaging system turns cancer tissue neon.

More-Accurate Radiation Therapy

Small, implantable devices could measure radiation from within tumors themselves.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

erbium

337 Comments

  • 554 Days Ago
  • 08/02/2010

Good news

the figure bandied about is that a CT scan is 100x that of a chest xray and can be up to 440 times that of a chest xray.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/15/science/la-sci-ct-scans15-2009dec15

if implemented, this could reduce that to 12 to 55 times that of a chest xray.

Of course, improvements could also reduce the chest xray it is being compared to.

The younger you are when getting all this radiation the more serious it will be as your cells have a much longer lifetime dividing so each cell is more important to keep intact.

Reply

ms

190 Comments

  • 554 Days Ago
  • 08/02/2010

Technology doesn't always work as advertised...

See
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html?hpw
for CT horror story, including the observation that mindlessly employing automatic methods for reducing radiation may do the opposite.

Reply

erbium

337 Comments

  • 553 Days Ago
  • 08/03/2010

Good of you to point out

there are really several problems here

1) normal doses can cause damage; normal settings can hurt Pt when used for longer procedures
2) malfunctions or disconnects in training or communications with the machine can happen and can even be unnoticed. 

3) as previous articles here have pointed out, there are not total dosage repositories for the patient that stay with the patient if they don't request their own medical record and take it with them to new health provider.

We had to keep exposure doses for life for all our clients at one company I was with.  SOmetimes the dosage would have to be extrapolated to correct readings behind protection devices.  But we certainly didn't cover most of the normal patients. 

4) training of Drs to recognize overdoses.

perhaps some kind of monitor strip inside the machine would independently assess dosage actually hitting it and meter this.

It would have to be long and wide enough so that irradiating only a specific body part such as the brain scans mentioned would still be monitored.

This would likely have to be required by federal statutes or mfgrs would complain of increased cost causing lack of competitiveness in sales of machines.

Reply

profquatermass

57 Comments

  • 553 Days Ago
  • 08/03/2010

Nice.

Let's not forget the Operators potential exposure to the x-rays too.

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

The Virtual Nurse Will See You Now

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Geron

HTC

1366 Technologies

Novartis

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement