|
|
||||||||
EDUCATION EXHIBIT |
1 From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905. Recipient of a Certificate of Merit award for an education exhibit at the 2004 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received August 11, 2006; revision requested September 5 and received February 13, 2007; accepted February 13. C.H.M. received partial support from Siemens Medical Solutions for research not related to this article; all remaining authors have no financial relationships to disclose. Address correspondence to C.H.M. (e-mail: mccollough.cynthia{at}mayo.edu).
The potential biological effects of in utero radiation exposure of a developing fetus include prenatal death, intrauterine growth restriction, small head size, mental retardation, organ malformation, and childhood cancer. The risk of each effect depends on the gestational age at the time of exposure, fetal cellular repair mechanisms, and the absorbed radiation dose level. A comparison between the dose levels associated with each of these risks and the estimated fetal doses from typical radiologic examinations lends support to the conclusion that fetal risks are minimal and, therefore, that radiologic and nuclear medicine examinations that may provide significant diagnostic information should not be withheld from pregnant women. The latter position is advocated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, National Council on Radiation Protection, American College of Radiology, and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, although the risks are small, it is important to ensure that radiation doses are kept as low as reasonably achievable.
© RSNA, 2007
Related Article
RadioGraphics 2007 27: 917-918.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. H. McCollough, L. Guimaraes, and J. G. Fletcher In Defense of Body CT Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2009; 193(1): 28 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. K. Pahade, D. Litmanovich, I. Pedrosa, J. Romero, A. A. Bankier, and P. M. Boiselle Quality Initiatives: Imaging Pregnant Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: What the Radiologist Needs to Know RadioGraphics, May 1, 2009; 29(3): 639 - 654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Pedrosa, M. Lafornara, P. V. Pandharipande, J. D. Goldsmith, and N. M. Rofsky Pregnant Patients Suspected of Having Acute Appendicitis: Effect of MR Imaging on Negative Laparotomy Rate and Appendiceal Perforation Rate Radiology, March 1, 2009; 250(3): 749 - 757. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Angel, C. V. Wellnitz, M. M. Goodsitt, N. Yaghmai, J. J. DeMarco, C. H. Cagnon, J. W. Sayre, D. D. Cody, D. M. Stevens, A. N. Primak, et al. Radiation Dose to the Fetus for Pregnant Patients Undergoing Multidetector CT Imaging: Monte Carlo Simulations Estimating Fetal Dose for a Range of Gestational Age and Patient Size Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 220 - 227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. L. Nickoloff, Z. F. Lu, A. K. Dutta, and J. C. So Radiation Dose Descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and Other Strange Creatures RadioGraphics, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 1439 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. A. Jaffe, T. T. Yoshizumi, G. I. Toncheva, G. Nguyen, L. M. Hurwitz, and R. C. Nelson Early First-Trimester Fetal Radiation Dose Estimation in 16-MDCT Without and With Automated Tube Current Modulation Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2008; 190(4): 860 - 864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. J. Patel, D. L. Reede, D. S. Katz, R. Subramaniam, and J. K. Amorosa Imaging the Pregnant Patient for Nonobstetric Conditions: Algorithms and Radiation Dose Considerations RadioGraphics, November 1, 2007; 27(6): 1705 - 1722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Togashi Invited Commentary RadioGraphics, July 1, 2007; 27(4): 917 - 918. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOGRAPHICS | RADIOLOGY | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |