Recently pediatric CT has been performed by reduced dose according to tube current modulation이라고, this fact has a possibility more reduce a dose because of strong affect depend on tube current modulation. Almost all MDCT snow show and allow storage of the volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose length product (DLP), and effective dose estimations on dose reports, which are essential to assess patient radiation exposure and risks. To decrease these radiation exposure risks, the principles of justification and optimization should be followed. justification means that the examination must be medically indicated and useful. Results is using tube current modulation이라고 tend to the lower kV, the lower effective dose. In case of use a low dose CT protocol, we found a relatively lower effective dose than using tube current modulation. Average effective dose of our studies(brain, chest, abdomen-pelvis) less than 47%, 13.8%, 25.7% of germany reference dose, and 55.7%, 10.2%, 43.6% of UK(United Kingdom) reference dose respectively. when performed examination for reduced dose, we must use tube current modulation and low dose CT protocol including bodyweight based tube current adaption.

Background/Aims : The increasing use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventional radiology calls for greater consideration of radiation exposure risk to radiologist and radiological technician, and emphasizes the proper system of radiation protection. This study was designed to assess the effect of a protective grass shield.Methods : A protective grass was following data depth, 0.8 cm; width, 100 cm; length, 100 cm, lead equivalent, 1.6 mmPb. The protective shield was located between the patient and the radiologist. Thirty patients (13 male and 17 female) undergoing interventional radiology between September 2010 and December 2010 were selected for this study. The dose of radiation exposure was recorded with or without the protective grass shield at the level of the head, chest, and pelvis. The measurement was made at 50 cm and 150 cm from the radiation source.Results : The mean patient age was 69 years. The mean patient height and weight was 159.7 ± 6.7 cm and 60.3 ± 5.9 kg, respectively. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 20.5 ± 3.0 kg/m2. radiologists received 1530.2 ± 550.0 mR/hr without the protective lead shield. At the same distance, radiation exposure was significantly reduced to 50.3±85.2 mR/hr with the protective lead shield (p-value＜0.0001). The radiation exposure to radiologist and radiological technician was significantly reduced by the use of a protective lead shield (p value ＜0.0001). The amount of radiation exposure during interventional radiology was related to the patient' BMI (r=0.749, p=0.001).Conclusions : This protective shield grass is effective in protecting radiologist and radiological technician from radiation exposure.

This study investigates the usefulness of body fix in 4DRT on Liver cancer trying to find tumor tissue's volume and located variations, absorbed dose on tumor and normal tissues. Test subjects 23 patients were agreed these test. These patient's have a 4 dimensional CT scan. We make an acquisition on patients CT image by two types-put on the body fix or not-. Average tumor volume reduced by 0.17% on GTV and 3.2% on CTV and PTV. Tumor's variation reduces 29.8%(anterior and posterior, AP) and 5.31% (upper and lower, UL). The absorbed tumor doses under put on the body fix was a little higher(1.3%) than other. Normal tissues'(normal liver, stomach, Rt. kidney, spinal cord) absorbed dose could be reduced approximately 5%. Therefore, using body fix on 4DRT for liver cancer patient is considered effectively.