Excess of Radiation Burden for Young Testicular Cancer Patients using Automatic Exposure Control and Contrast Agent on Whole-body Computed Tomography Imaging
| Autor: | Jarmo Kulmala, Eeva Salminen, Tuukka Pölönen, Hannu Järvinen, Hannele Niiniviita, Heli Määttänen |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
media_common.quotation_subject R895-920 Computed tomography radiation exposure 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Medicine Contrast (vision) Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Testicular cancer Automatic exposure control media_common medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry automatic exposure control Mean age computed tomography contrast agent medicine.disease waist circumference Radiation exposure Oncology 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Ct scanners Radiology business Nuclear medicine Whole body Research Article |
| Zdroj: | Radiology and Oncology Radiology and Oncology, Vol 51, Iss 2, Pp 235-240 (2017) |
| ISSN: | 1581-3207 1318-2099 |
| Popis: | Background The aim of the study was to assess patient dose from whole-body computed tomography (CT) in association with patient size, automatic exposure control (AEC) and intravenous (IV) contrast agent. Patients and methods Sixty-five testicular cancer patients (mean age 28 years) underwent altogether 279 whole-body CT scans from April 2000 to April 2011. The mean number of repeated examinations was 4.3. The GE LightSpeed 16 equipped with AEC and the Siemens Plus 4 CT scanners were used for imaging. Whole-body scans were performed with (216) and without (63) IV contrast. The ImPACT software was used to determine the effective and organ doses. Results Patient doses were independent (p < 0.41) of patient size when the Plus 4 device (mean 7.4 mSv, SD 1.7 mSv) was used, but with the LightSpeed 16 AEC device, the dose (mean 14 mSv, SD 4.6 mSv) increased significantly (p < 0.001) with waist cirfumference. Imaging with the IV contrast agent caused significantly higher (13% Plus 4, 35% LightSpeed 16) exposure than non-contrast imaging (p < 0.001). Conclusions Great caution on the use of IV contrast agent and careful set-up of the AEC modulation parameters is recommended to avoid excessive radiation exposure on the whole-body CT imaging of young patients. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|