Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
Volume 37, Issue 5 , Pages 391-398 , September 2007

PET/CT and SPECT/CT Dosimetry in Children: The Challenge to the Pediatric Imager

  • Michael J. Gelfand, MD

      Affiliations

    • Nuclear Medicine Section, Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Michael J. Gelfand, MD, Nuclear Medicine Section, Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039.
    • ,
  • Lisa C. Lemen, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

References 

  1. Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL, et al. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors (Report 12, Part I. Cancer: 1950-1990). Radiat Res. 1996;146:1–27
  2. Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y. Age-time patterns for cancer and noncancer excess risks in the atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000;154:733–734discussion 734-735
  3. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:289–296
  4. Brenner DJ. Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32:223–228discussion 242-244
  5. Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:303–306
  6. Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF. Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:297–301
  7. FDA Public Health Notification. 2001;November 2, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/110201-ct.html
  8. Brasch RC, Boyd DP, Gooding CA. Computed tomographic scanning in children: comparison of radiation dose and resolving power of commercial CT scanners. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978;131:95–101
  9. Brasch RC, Cann CE. Computed tomographic scanning in children: II (An updated comparison of radiation dose and resolving power of commercial scanners). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;138:127–133
  10. Fearon T, Vucich J. Pediatric patient exposures from CT examinations: GE CT/T 9800 scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985;144:805–809
  11. Nickoloff E. Current adult and pediatric CT doses. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32:250–260
  12. Ambrosino MM, Genieser NB, Roche KJ, et al. Feasibility of high-resolution, low-dose chest CT in evaluating the pediatric chest. Pediatr Radiol. 1994;24:6–10
  13. Kamel IR, Hernandez RJ, Martin JE, et al. Radiation dose reduction in CT of the pediatric pelvis. Radiology. 1994;190:683–687
  14. Mayo JR, Hartman TE, Lee KS, et al. CT of the chest: minimal tube current required for good image quality with the least radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:603–607
  15. Robinson AE, Hill EP, Harpen MD. Radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT. Pediatr Radiol. 1986;16:53–54
  16. Rogalla P, Stover B, Scheer I, et al. Low-dose spiral CT: applicability to paediatric chest imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 1999;29:565–569
  17. Vade A, Demos TC, Olson MC, et al. Evaluation of image quality using 1 : 1 pitch and 1.5 : 1 pitch helical CT in children: a comparative study. Pediatr Radiol. 1996;26:891–893
  18. Arch ME, Frush DP. Dose management for pediatric body MDCT: How are we doing?. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(suppl 1):S67;(abstr)
  19. Stabin MG, Gelfand MJ. Dosimetry of pediatric nuclear medicine procedures. Q J Nucl Med. 1998;42:93–112
  20. Thomas SR, Gelfand MJ, Kereiakes JG, et al. Dose to the metaphyseal growth complexes in children undergoing 99mTc-EHDP bone scans. Radiology. 1978;126:193–195
  21. Gelfand MJ, Thomas SR, Kereiakes JG. Absorbed radiation dose from routine imaging of the skeleton in children. Ann Radiol. 1983;26:421–423(Paris)
  22. ImPACT: London, UK, Available at: www.impactscan.org. Accessed May 31, 2007
  23. Thomas KE, Wang B. Age-specific doses for CT examinations using DLP conversion coefficients. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(suppl 1):S68;(abstr)
  24. Fahey FH, Palmer MR, Strauss KJ, et al. Dosimetry and adequacy of CT-based attenuation correction for pediatric PET: phantom study. Radiology. 2007;243:96–104
  25. Setty B, Kalra M, Liu B, et al. Optimization of radiation doses for pediatric head and neck CT protocols. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(suppl 1):S81;(abstr)
  26. Lim R, Fahey FH, Drubach LA, et al. Early experience with fluorine-18 sodium fluoride bone PET in young patients with back pain. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007;27:277–282
  27. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: Optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1555–1560
  28. Lucaya J, Piqueras J, Garcia-Pena P, et al. Low-dose high-resolution CT of the chest in children and young adults: Dose, cooperation, artifact incidence, and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:985–992
  29. Braithwaite K, Udaysankar UK, Karsli T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of low dose head CT evaluations with shunted hydrocephalus. Pediatric Radiol. 2007;37(suppl 1):S59;(abstr)
  30. Hopkins DJ, Laor T, Ryckman FC, et al. Dents and rays: Are we doing the right thing?. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(suppl 1):S69;(abstr)
  31. Karmazyn B, Frush D, Applegate K, et al. Comparison of standard and reduced radiation dose 16-slice MDCT for detection of nephrolithiasis. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(suppl 1):S57;(abstr)
  32. Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, et al. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:588–596
  33. Beyer T, Antoch G, Muller S, et al. Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(suppl 1):25S–35S
  34. Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, et al. Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT: frequency in 300 patients. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:240–243
  35. Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, et al. Respiratory motion artifacts on PET emission images obtained using CT attenuation correction on PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:603–606
  36. Sharp SE, Helton KJ, Gelfand MJ, et al. Detection of pulmonary nodules on localization CT scans acquired during PET/CT imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(suppl 1):S60;(abstr)
  37. Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J, et al. Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:298–301
  38. Aquino SL, Kuester LB, Muse VV, et al. Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:692–696
  39. Juergens KU, Weckesser M, Stegger L, et al. Tumor staging using whole-body high-resolution 16-channel PET-CT: Does additional low-dose chest CT in inspiration improve the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules?. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1131–1137
  40. Karabulut N, Toru M, Gelebek V, et al. Comparison of low-dose and standard-dose helical CT in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2764–2769
  41. Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: Low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology. 1998;209:243–249
  42. Weng MJ, Wu MT, Pan HB, et al. The feasibility of low-dose CT for pulmonary metastasis in patients with primary gynecologic malignancy. Clin Imaging. 2004;28:408–414
  43. Wormanns D, Ludwig K, Beyer F, et al. Detection of pulmonary nodules at multirow-detector CT: Effectiveness of double reading to improve sensitivity at standard-dose and low-dose chest CT. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:14–22
  44. Cobby M, Whipp E, Bullimore J, et al. CT appearances of relapse of lymphoma in the lung. Clin Radiol. 1990;41:232–238
  45. Hwang GL, Leung AN, Zinck SE, et al. Recurrent lymphoma of the lung: Computed tomography appearance. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29:228–230
  46. Mawlawi O, Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, et al. Quantifying the effect of IV contrast media on integrated PET/CT: Clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:308–319
  47. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G, et al. Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: Initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:272–278
  48. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, et al. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:287–297
  49. Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Elsner K, et al. Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1623–1629
  50. Ovadia D, Metser U, Lievshitz G, et al. Back pain in adolescents: assessment with integrated 18F-fluoride positron-emission tomography-computed tomography. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007;27:90–93

PII: S0001-2998(07)00068-2

doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2007.05.002

Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
Volume 37, Issue 5 , Pages 391-398 , September 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution