ライフサイエンスコーパス: radiation dose

1 , contrast volume, number of angiograms, and radiation dose).

2 a but have limited accuracy and deliver high radiation dose.

3 that attained with PET/CT, at about half the radiation dose.

4 coronary artery disease at a relatively low radiation dose.

5 ge, and in females also with the accumulated radiation dose.

6 ation of contrast medium increases the total radiation dose.

7 , contrast material protocol injections, and radiation dose.

8 truction algorithms is connected with higher radiation dose.

9 amma radiation energy though exposed to same radiation dose.

10 result in a significant reduction in patient radiation dose.

11 g should be possible with acceptable patient radiation dose.

12 tors that influence computed tomography (CT) radiation dose.

13 sion detection, and percentage reductions in radiation dose.

14 in risk resulting from irradiation field and radiation dose.

15 o a safer PET tracer with reduced background radiation dose.

16 receive an optimal image quality at reduced radiation dose.

17 lative risk of leukemia per gray (ERR/Gy) of radiation dose.

18 ams in DBT screening in an attempt to reduce radiation dose.

19 was associated with reduction in therapeutic radiation dose.

20 rmance in functional oxides as a function of radiation dose.

21 particles are needed to deliver a particular radiation dose.

22 in disadvantage of CT is a considerably high radiation dose.

23 atio, long imaging times, and concerns about radiation dose.

24 dysfunction results from a range of ionizing radiation doses.

25 would provide more cancer killing at current radiation doses.

26 ing point for institutional evaluation of CT radiation doses.

27 y control programs will reduce the necessary radiation doses.

28 h or without cetuximab, and 60- versus 74-Gy radiation doses.

29 an be very different at low compared to high radiation doses.

30 variable between patients, even for similar radiation doses.

31 coronary arteries, at significantly reduced radiation dose (0.44 mSv) and contrast medium volume (45

32 ver, a significant difference in fluoroscopy radiation dose (10.4 Gy . cm(2) +/- 10.6 for cone-beam C

33 accuracy) and allows for imaging at reduced radiation dose (16% +/- 13), while maintaining low-contr

34 tion (>10 Gy) can lead to lymphopenia, lower radiation doses (2-4 Gy) represent a valid treatment opt

35 [P < .05]) and therefore in total procedural radiation dose (20.5 Gy . cm(2) +/- 13.4 for cone-beam C

36 Some tumor regions received high radiation doses (250-1,300 Gy).

37 rs; 65% male; 40% squamous histology; median radiation dose, 63.0 Gy), and 3728 patients from 48 stud

38 rs; 65% male; 40% squamous histology; median radiation dose, 64.6 Gy).

39 scopy time 2.8 (1.5-4.4) minutes, and median radiation dose 789 (470-1466) cGy*cm(2).

40 reconstruction technique are associated with radiation doses about 1.5 times higher than those in con

41 that the DNA exonuclease Trex1 is induced by radiation doses above 12-18 Gy in different cancer cells

42 The administered radioactivity and effective radiation doses absorbed were similar between the study

43 e 2011-2012, but remains low; variability of radiation dose according to facility continues to be wid

44 ata collection permit a detailed analysis of radiation dose according to protocol and equipment over

45 ATVS significantly reduces radiation dose across most, but not all, body regions an

46 to assess the relationship between absorbed radiation dose (AD) to lesions and their response after

47 py and posttreatment AMT PET as well as high radiation dose affecting the thalamus were associated wi

48 Radiation doses after intravenous administration of the

49 tion of breast-conserving treatment, various radiation doses after lumpectomy have been used.

50 ast volume was 250 (IQR: 180 to 340) ml, and radiation doses (air kerma and dose area product) were 1

51 fe, cumulative diagnostic costs, and applied radiation dose (all P interactions>/=0.097).

52 um volume (45 mL), thus enabling substantial radiation dose and contrast medium savings as compared w

53 in the original schedule, and a reduction in radiation dose and cost during the 5-year follow-up peri

54 This technique administers a very high radiation dose and effectively causes the ablation of tu

55 ses of this study are to: (i) to measure the radiation dose and estimate the effective doses to pedia

56 Trex1 induction may guide the selection of radiation dose and fractionation in patients treated wit

57 Purpose To determine the effect of radiation dose and iterative reconstruction (IR) on nois

58 a novel technique in enhancement of ionising radiation dose and its effect on biological systems.

59 east cancer detection rates and estimates of radiation dose and radiation risk and is, therefore, exe

60 fects model was used to assess the effect of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithm on extracted

61 ence of autonomic dysfunction increased with radiation dose and time from RT.

62 o, Norway, were initiated in 1965 to monitor radiation doses and follow environmental (137)Cs behavio

63 Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-sp

64 color of the mortadellas, regardless of the radiation dose applied.

65 Radiation doses applied to the fillets were estimated us

66 on SAFIRE increases detectability at a given radiation dose (approximately 2% increase in detection a

67 Methods to curtail radiation dose are of importance.

68 ugates are formed in vivo and, consequently, radiation doses are deposited mainly locally.

69 Fetal radiation doses are higher in early pregnancy than in la

70 how that cells and tumors that survive large radiation doses are not more radioresistant than unirrad

71 tients with HPV-associated OPSCC for reduced radiation dose as a means of sparing late sequelae.

72 Purpose To estimate the radiation dose as a result of contrast medium administra

73 ubjected, for a week, to cumulative ionizing radiation doses, as used during cancer treatment (2 Gy/f

74 Radiation doses associated with CT are higher in compari

75 Radiation dose at wrist or head did not differ between r

76 Radiation dose averaged 2.22 mSv over all patients.

77 erfusion defect, with excellent prognosis, a radiation dose averaging 1 mSv, and a test duration of l

78 s in diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose between the FBP and AIDR 3D examinations.

79 significance of differences in the absorbed radiation doses between the techniques.

80 In univariate analysis, age >60 years, radiation dose, bilateral ocular involvement at presenta

81 In addition, the radiation dose burden resulting from a 4D CT acquisition

82 blending in bone SPECT/CT can reduce the CT radiation dose by 60%, with no sacrifice in attenuation-

83 After normalization of operator radiation dose by fluoroscopy time or DAP, the differenc

84 Therefore, accurate radiation dose calculation for the embryo/fetus and preg

85 The extra radiation dose can be avoided in most patients older tha

86 Radiation dose changes were associated with reduced risk

87 2-Nanobody PET/CT is a safe procedure with a radiation dose comparable to other routinely used PET tr

88 that LMI1195 is well tolerated and yields a radiation dose comparable to that of other commonly used

89 A at a submillisievert fraction of effective radiation dose comparable with a chest x-ray in 2 views.

90 he assessment of MM features at a much lower radiation dose compared to standard CT protocols.

91 d for the benefits of DBT with a decrease in radiation dose compared with digital mammography/DBT.

92 Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for

93 All but one patient had measurable cochlear radiation dose (CRD) greater than 0 Gy.

94 difference between the proportion of reduced-radiation dose CT examinations (defined as those with a

95 Conclusion Use of reduced-radiation dose CT for evaluation of kidney stones has in

96 ion by using current recommendations for low-radiation-dose CT examinations of the chest.

97 Automated methods of radiation dose data collection permit a detailed analysi

98 However, measuring the radiation dose delivered by (90)Y is challenging because

99 chniques allowed to significantly reduce the radiation dose delivered during examinations performed a

100 ed S values can be exploited to estimate the radiation dose delivered to pregnant patients and the em

101 35%, 54%, 27%, 18%, 17%, and 24% increase in radiation dose delivered to the heart, spleen, liver, ki

102 To determine the radiation dose distribution in nonvascularized microtumo

103 Comparisons of radiation dose distributions between photon and proton t

104 0 minutes [60-121 minutes]; P=0.07), similar radiation dose (dose area product 89 Grayxcm(2) [52-163

105 distance between needle tip and target), and radiation dose (dose-area product [DAP]) were recorded f

106 We report measurements of the radiation dose, dose equivalent, and linear energy trans

107 ose To compare the navigational accuracy and radiation dose during needle localization of targets for

108 om large unselected populations on patients' radiation doses during coronary angiography (CA) and PCI

109 uggest that gold nanoparticle (GNP)-mediated radiation dose enhancement and radiosensitization can be

110 SiGdNP) provide simultaneous MR contrast and radiation dose enhancement.

111 lated using the RESRAD model showed that the radiation dose equivalent for the baseline conditions wa

112 A recent randomized radiation dose-escalation trial in unresectable stage II

113 Human radiation dose estimates for (64)Cu-LLP2A were extrapola

114 ssing this problem are reliable and accurate radiation dose estimates for the affected populations.

115 Human radiation dose estimates indicated the bladder wall as t

116 Human radiation dose estimates indicated urinary bladder wall

117 Radiation dose estimates were calculated using OLINDA/EX

118 Human radiation dose estimates were extrapolated from rat biod

119 The imaging findings, radiation dose estimates, and image quality of the two C

120 CTA resulted in an estimated radiation dose exposure of 0.29 +/- 0.12 mSv (range 0.16

121 s, biopsy rates, cancer detection rates, and radiation dose for 15 571 women screened with digital ma

122 The internal radiation dose for 99mTc-pertechnetate was calculated on

123 phy does not require ionizing radiation, the radiation dose for CT colonography has decreased substan

124 dication, and to establish a current average radiation dose for CT evaluation for kidney stones by qu

125 cipants who underwent imaging, the increased radiation dose for the attenuation of the isolation cham

126 The absorbed radiation dose for the whole body was calculated by ente

127 Radiation doses for CT and radiography were assessed for

128 imetric methods and calculate tumor-absorbed radiation doses for patients treated with (177)Lu-liloto

129 Mean operator radiation doses for PCI with basic protection were 107 m

130 prehensive systematic approach to estimating radiation doses for the evaluation of health risks resul

131 MBq, 4.4 times higher than the highest tumor radiation dose found for (177)Lu-DOTA-octreotate.

132 Conclusion: The estimated radiation dose from (11)C-nicotine administration is rel

133 The estimated radiation dose from (11)C-nicotine administration is rel

134 The fetal radiation dose from (18)F-FDG was estimated in a series

135 No toxicities were observed, and estimated radiation dose from (64)Cu-DOTA-trastuzumab was similar

136 termine the biodistribution and estimate the radiation dose from (68)Ga-DOTA-E-[c(RGDfK)]2 using whol

137 up 1 to 1.1 (0.7-1.5) minutes in group 2 and radiation dose from 2363 (1413-3475) to 490 (230-654) cG

138 Mean radiation dose from CAC acquisition was 1.4+/-0.7 mSv.

139 tribution of (11)C-nicotine and the absorbed radiation dose from whole-body (11)C-nicotine PET imagin

140 es from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited from the published

141 adratic model to derive the genomic-adjusted radiation dose (GARD).

142 ed radiation effectiveness would allow lower radiation doses given to patients, reducing adverse effe

143 re than 90% of the OTA was degraded by gamma-radiation doses >/=2.5kGy, and a 2-fold reduction in OTA

144 High cardiac radiation dose (>/=35 Gy) was associated with an increas

145 Among the 23 imaging features assessed, radiation dose had a significant effect on five, three,

146 However, a complete radiation dose had a significantly lower risk of long-te

147 patients receiving a complete vs incomplete radiation dose had a similar resection margin positivity

148 ier observations, we hypothesized that lower radiation doses have a direct positive effect on T cells

149 model, alpha-emitters are needed to achieve radiation doses high enough to eradicate microscopic tum

150 own about the relationship between the heart radiation dose (HRD) received during childhood and the r

151 tumor subvolumes that may require additional radiation doses (ie, dose painting) and from treatment a

152 uld represent a significant change in annual radiation dose if consumed by humans.

153 l schedule, and a corresponding reduction in radiation dose (if involved) and cost during the 5-year

154 The role of the radiation dose in cataract risk was investigated using t

155 e extrapolations will result in the expected radiation dose in children and adolescents.

156 ve reconstruction techniques allow to reduce radiation dose in CT examinations and to extend indicati

157 Radiation dose in extended chest LDCT with parameters al

158 present study was to estimate the (11)C-GMOM radiation dose in healthy humans.

159 cations for defining a biomarker to optimize radiation dose in patients to improve outcomes.

160 gan-specific metastatic lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer.

161 hen operators' blood was exposed to the same radiation dose in vitro (P<0.0001).

162 The aim of this study was to evaluate radiation doses in adult patient who underwent routine C

163 Radiation doses in both eyes for individuals were estima

164 of contrast agent given to the patients and radiation doses in coronary CT angiography (CTA) obtaine

165 The mean absorbed radiation doses in source organs ranged from 7.7 muGy.MB

166 calizer radiography projections to the total radiation dose, including both the dose from localizer r

167 Higher radiation doses increased the redox potential, promoted

168 NA double-strand-break levels included total radiation dose, increasing tube potential, and tube curr

169 generation dual-source CT scanner at various radiation dose index levels (range, 0.74-5.8 mGy).

170 of visible objects was noted with increasing radiation dose index, section thickness, and ADMIRE stre

171 evere for patients receiving higher absorbed radiation doses, indicating that adverse events possibly

172 CT projection data from 21 patients into six radiation dose levels (12.5%, 25%, 37.5%, 50%, 75%, and

173 r the goal of public reporting of laboratory radiation dose levels in conjunction with diagnostic per

174 row CT scans were performed at two different radiation dose levels; images were reconstructed with fi

175 be administered without exceeding regulatory radiation dose limits.

176 significantly fewer patients treated with a radiation dose </= 54 Gy had difficulty swallowing solid

177 ularization procedures, cumulative effective radiation dose, major adverse cardiac events, defined as

178 Radiation dose-matched delayed contrast agent-enhanced s

179 Mean cardiac radiation dose (MCRD) in each patient was calculated fro

180 technical assessment included evaluation of radiation dose measured as a function of kilovolt peak a

181 Radiation dose metrics were prospectively and electronic

182 ary outcome was the difference between total radiation dose (microSv; internal and external to cap).

183 s in tissues, calculates the distribution of radiation dose, models responses on a cell-by-cell basis

184 vides a practical approach to performing low-radiation-dose MPI using traditional and novel technolog

185 is the dose-limiting organ, with an average radiation dose of 0.091 mGy/MBq.

186 .5 mug/30 MBq) resulted in the highest tumor radiation dose of 1.8 +/- 0.7 Gy/MBq, 4.4 times higher t

187 , preoperative RT, non-external-beam RT, and radiation dose of 30 Gy or lower or 70 Gy or higher.

188 l and carboplatin combined with a concurrent radiation dose of 41.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the tum

189 Achieving a target radiation dose of 45.0 to 50.4 Gy is associated with a s

190 Results Radiation dose of image acquisition did not significantl

191 ing, low-cost modality to measure individual radiation doses of (90)Y-labeled compounds noninvasively

192 Fish (O. mykiss) were exposed to radiation doses of 0.250, 0.500, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 kGy i

193 gamma-radiation was found more difficult, as radiation doses of 30kGy eliminate at most 24% of the OT

194 nce imaging (CLI) could be used to determine radiation doses of a (90)Y-labeled GRPr antagonist in nu

195 Exposure to radiation doses of at least 10 Gy to the eyes increased

196 No previous study has assessed outcomes and radiation doses of patients undergoing MPI on an HE-SPEC

197 Purpose To investigate the impact of radiation dose on breast density estimation in digital m

198 The influence of image acquisition radiation dose on quantitative breast density estimation

199 The study followed a 48-month radiation dose optimization effort in a large academic i

200 Radiation dose optimization measures were effective, but

201 m provides the opportunity for consistent CT radiation dose optimization on a broad scale.

202 loride), which delivered very high and fatal radiation doses over a period of a few days.

203 risk estimation highlights the need to limit radiation dose, particularly for high-exposure modalitie

204 erative reconstruction images, a 60% reduced radiation dose pass was added with MBIR model-based iter

205 As well, the mean effective radiation dose per-patient was higher in DURING_Tl-201 (

206 ommunity was exposed to four different gamma radiation doses ranging from 0.46 to 3.96 kGy to test wh

207 ion and monitor tumor response uses very low radiation doses ranging from 0.5 to 100 mGy.

208 relative importance being determined by the radiation dose rate, the steel corrosion rate, and the d

209 The median radiation dose received among those who did not achieve

210 relationship between heart rate, gender and radiation dose received by the patients was compared.

211 ast few years, with a growing concern on the radiation dose received by the patients.

212 ave been published on the association of the radiation dose received to the eyes during radiotherapy

213 with a submillisievert fraction of effective radiation dose reconstructed with a model-based iterativ

214 an serve as a basis to optimize the value of radiation dose reconstruction following a nuclear reacto

215 INTERPRETATION: Chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses reduced by 15-20% was associated with hi

216 Here, we report that a 0.1 Gy radiation dose reduces cancer progression by deactivatin

217 Radiation dose reduction at pediatric CT was achieved wh

218 linical trials aimed at estimating potential radiation dose reduction by using iterative reconstructi

219 iterative reconstruction may allow up to 59% radiation dose reduction compared with the dose with ASI

220 A radiation dose reduction from 70 to 50 Gy (RBE) did not

221 P = .03), which translated into an estimated radiation dose reduction potential (+/-95% confidence in

222 y between FBP and SAFIRE and to estimate the radiation dose reduction potential of SAFIRE.

223 Radiation dose reduction potential ranged from 56% to 60

224 Radiation dose reduction provided by the TCs was analyze

225 Radiation dose reduction resulted in significantly impro

226 ctral imaging, tissue perfusion imaging, and radiation dose reduction through iterative reconstructio

227 mpared with FBP, ADMIRE allows a substantial radiation dose reduction while preserving low-contrast d

228 his has led to CT protocol modifications for radiation dose reduction, improved diagnostic performanc

229 with CCTA and functional testing, as well as radiation dose reduction.

230 The mean radiation dose reductions (ie, radiation protection) pro

231 For radiation dose reductions of 25% or more, the ability to

232 Adjusted differences in comfort and radiation dose reductions were calculated by using a mix

233 3.9; 95% CI, 1.7 to 9.5; P < .01) and chest radiation dose (referent: no chest radiation; </= 20 Gy:

234 increased risks of heart failure (HF), but a radiation dose-response relationship has not previously

235 The linear radiation dose-response relationship identified can be u

236 m of artifact reduction and/or potential for radiation dose savings, chiefly due to image noise suppr

237 l comparisons), no significant effect of the radiation dose setting was observed for all but one of t

238 Radiation dose settings and reconstruction algorithms af

239 Hearts were scanned at equal radiation dose settings for the systems of all four vend

240 use of CT should always be justified and the radiation dose should be kept as low as reasonably achie

241 CT-related radiation doses should be monitored and controlled in or

242 tigen were assessed as approaches to deliver radiation doses sufficient for multiple myeloma cell era

243 ch cured at least 75% of mice at the highest radiation dose tested (1200 microCi), whereas at 600- an

244 ssion rates, and lesser increased cumulative radiation dose than men in a comparison of ED strategies

245 sease when treated with (211)At-B10-1F5 at a radiation dose that was less than one-third (15 microCi)

246 hese materials to shielding and the required radiation doses that may exceed regulatory limits preven

247 not substantially affected by variations in radiation dose; thus, the use of low-dose techniques for

248 in advanced CT scanners allow to reduce the radiation dose to a level comparable or even lower than

249 ires a large set of projection data and high radiation dose to achieve superior image quality.

250 target specificity while reducing off-target radiation dose to healthy tissue during payload delivery

251 Proton therapy clearly reduces collateral radiation dose to normal tissue when compared with photo

252 The radiation dose to staff was low; surgeons received a mea

253 tion of an osmotic agent serves to lower the radiation dose to the bone marrow.

254 Adapting RT-escalated radiation dose to the FDG-avid tumor detected by midtrea

255 , 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.34; P = <.001), total radiation dose to the fovea (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04

256 disease (CHD) and to quantify the effects of radiation dose to the heart, chemotherapy, and other car

257 of cardiac events and their relationship to radiation dose to the heart.

258 To obtain representative estimates of radiation dose to the human body, realistic biologic and

259 econstruction techniques enable lowering the radiation dose to the level comparable with conventional

260 ess relative risk (ERR) per Gy of cumulative radiation dose to the lung (mean dose = 0.79 Gy; range,

261 adiation dosimetry was performed to estimate radiation dose to the pancreas.

262 This approach leads to a reduction in radiation dose to the patient while combining the PET an

263 ovides an opportunity for a reduction in the radiation dose to these patients while maintaining an ap

264 ibution of this radionuclide and to estimate radiation dose to various organs.

265 of animal data may moderately underestimate radiation doses to organs in humans.

266 ocytopenia had received significantly higher radiation doses to RM than patients with grade 1/2 throm

267 Radiation doses to staff were measured.

268 DM significantly increased with higher mean radiation doses to the pancreatic tail (P < .001).

269 Radiation doses to the reproductive and blood-forming or

270 es from the second experiment, we calculated radiation doses to tumor and kidney of 0.33 +/- 0.12 (ra

271 The purpose of this study was to assess the radiation dose used in Low Dose Computer Tomography (LDC

272 olute uptake kinetics were used to calculate radiation doses using the OLINDA/EXM software.

273 /EXM software was applied to calculate human radiation doses using the reference adult model.

274 left temporal difference [external-internal] radiation dose was 4.79 [95% CI, 3.30-6.68] microSv; P<0

275 The median foveolar radiation dose was 4292 cGy (bevacizumab) and 4038 cGy (

276 The estimated effective radiation dose was comparable with the average exposure

277 Radiation dose was estimated by using volumetric CT dose

278 fallout was much less severe and the thyroid radiation dose was much lower in France, a case-control

279 Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target vol

280 The effective radiation dose was significantly higher in patients with

281 Radiation dose was the single most important prognostic

282 he critical organ, with the highest absorbed radiation doses, was the urinary bladder wall, at 0.047

283 Estimates of radiation dose were derived from the applied doses of (1

284 rgan-absorbed doses and effective whole-body radiation dose were obtained using dose conversion facto

285 Additionally, the effective radiation doses were calculated to be 2.64 and 26.4 mSv

286 Radiation doses were calculated with OLINDA/EXM software

287 Radiation doses were estimated using the OLINDA/EXM soft

288 Estimated radiation doses were highest for gallbladder (0.27 mSv/M

289 Radiation doses were measured by using dosimeters placed

290 applications may reduce the overall patient radiation dose when compared with PET/CT.

291 Conclusion Use of an AR C-arm system reduces radiation dose while maintaining navigational accuracy c

292 ues, have allowed for a reduction of applied radiation doses while maintaining image quality.

293 However, radiation dose, while relevant to be included in estimat

294 The urinary bladder received the highest radiation dose with a mean absorbed dose of 0.186 +/- 0.

295 The median radiation dose with CCTA was 5.88 mSv (n = 1039; confide

296 adiotherapy completed >/= 95% of the planned radiation dose with delay </= 5 days.

297 per particle, they can deliver a particular radiation dose with fewer particles, likely reducing emb

298 ery (SSRS), allowing delivery of tumoricidal radiation doses with sparing of nearby organs at risk.

299 Therefore, optimization of radiation doses with the use of specified imaging protoc

300 The potential exists to reduce radiation dose without compromising low-contrast detecta