Split-bolus vs. multiphasic contrast bolus protocol in patients with pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma
•Split bolus protocols may be suitable for pancreatic- and cholangiocarcinoma.•The split bolus protocol provides sufficient levels of diagnostic accuracy.•Split bolus protocol is equal to the multiphase protocol regarding image quality.•The split bolus protocol lowers the radiation exposure signific...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of radiology 2019-10, Vol.119, p.108626-108626, Article 108626 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •Split bolus protocols may be suitable for pancreatic- and cholangiocarcinoma.•The split bolus protocol provides sufficient levels of diagnostic accuracy.•Split bolus protocol is equal to the multiphase protocol regarding image quality.•The split bolus protocol lowers the radiation exposure significantly.•Split bolus protocols in computed tomography are easy and safe to perform.
To investigate the image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and dose reduction potential of a split-bolus protocol(SBP) compared with a multiphasic protocol(MPP) in the detection of recurrent or progressive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma(PDAC) or cholangiocarcinoma(CC) using contrast- enhanced computed tomography(CECT).
This prospective study included 56 patients who underwent CECT, 28 with our institutional standard MPP(100 ml contrast bolus) and 28 with a novel SBP(110 ml). Radiation exposure was determined in terms of total dose- length product(DLP) and computed tomography dose index(CTDI). Image quality was measured objectively by analysis of attenuation in Hounsfield units(HU) in regions of interest(ROIs) and subjectively by two blinded readers using a Likert scale. Diagnostic accuracy and interreader variability were tested.
The total DLP of the SBP group(498.1 ± 43.7 mGy*cm) was significantly lower than in the MPP group(1,092.5 ± 106.9 mGy*cm; p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0720-048X 1872-7727 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.027 |