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!
|
| container_end_page | 108626 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 108626 |
| container_title | European journal of radiology |
| container_volume | 119 |
| creator | Muenzfeld, Hanna Mahjoub, Samy Roehle, Robert Pelzer, Uwe Bahra, Marcus Boening, Georg Hamm, Bernd Geisel, Dominik Auer, Timo Alexander |
| description | •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 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.027 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2280565465</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0720048X19302700</els_id><sourcerecordid>2280565465</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-591c1420fb41572f107a4bd09869b877d8262e9d2060a4e8dd1f34c80d09f3043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOxCAUhonR6Hh5AhPD0k3rgdLSLlwY4y0xcaEm7ggF6jBpSwU6xrcXHXXpitv3n3P4EDomkBMg1dkqNysvdU6BNDnwHCjfQgtSc5pxTvk2WgCnkAGrX_bQfggrAChZQ3fRXkFYAVVFFqh_nHobs9b1c8DrkONh7qOdljJYhZUbo5ch4s3z5F10yvXYjniS0ZoxBvxu4zKdRuVNukqZtDUeO4_V0vVyfLVOSa_s6AZ5iHY62Qdz9LMeoOfrq6fL2-z-4ebu8uI-U0XZxKxsiCKMQtcyUnLaEeCStRqaumramnNd04qaRlOoQDJTa026gqkaEtIVwIoDdLqpmyZ-m02IYrBBmT6NY9wcBKU1lFXJqjKhxQZV3oXgTScmbwfpPwQB8aVZrMS3ZvGlWQAXSXNKnfw0mNvB6L_Mr9cEnG8Ak765tsaLoJIvZbT1RkWhnf23wSfGC5CH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2280565465</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Split-bolus vs. multiphasic contrast bolus protocol in patients with pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Muenzfeld, Hanna ; Mahjoub, Samy ; Roehle, Robert ; Pelzer, Uwe ; Bahra, Marcus ; Boening, Georg ; Hamm, Bernd ; Geisel, Dominik ; Auer, Timo Alexander</creator><creatorcontrib>Muenzfeld, Hanna ; Mahjoub, Samy ; Roehle, Robert ; Pelzer, Uwe ; Bahra, Marcus ; Boening, Georg ; Hamm, Bernd ; Geisel, Dominik ; Auer, Timo Alexander</creatorcontrib><description>•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 < 0.001). The SBP showed higher contrast enhancement of all critical anatomical structures including portal vein, liver, and pancreas compared with the MPP, except for the aorta(SBP: 326.9 ± 15.7 HU vs. MPP: 246.7 ± 12.2 HU; p < 0.001).
Subjective analysis revealed poorer image quality ratings for important landmarks with the MPP (resection surface: p = 0.624, portal vein: p = 0.395, liver p = 0.361). The two blinded readers correlated significantly. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV), and overall interreader variabilities correlated significantly. Furthermore, significantly fewer slices per exam were required for the SBP(1,823 vs. 3,235; p < 0.001).
The SBP provides the same image quality and diagnostic accuracy as an MPP while significantly lowering radiation exposure in CT follow-up of PDAC or CC.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0720-048X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7727</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.027</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31430661</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Aged ; Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Bile Ducts - diagnostic imaging ; Bile Ducts - radiation effects ; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging ; Cholangiocarcinoma ; Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnostic imaging ; Clinical Protocols ; Contrast Media - administration & dosage ; Dose reduction ; Female ; Humans ; Iohexol - administration & dosage ; Iohexol - analogs & derivatives ; Iopamidol - administration & dosage ; Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives ; Liver - diagnostic imaging ; Liver - radiation effects ; Male ; Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnostic imaging ; Pancreas - diagnostic imaging ; Pancreas - radiation effects ; Pancreatic cancer ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Portal Vein - diagnostic imaging ; Portal Vein - radiation effects ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiation Exposure ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Split-bolus CT ; Split-bolus technique</subject><ispartof>European journal of radiology, 2019-10, Vol.119, p.108626-108626, Article 108626</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-591c1420fb41572f107a4bd09869b877d8262e9d2060a4e8dd1f34c80d09f3043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-591c1420fb41572f107a4bd09869b877d8262e9d2060a4e8dd1f34c80d09f3043</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5763-689X ; 0000-0001-5151-1853</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X19302700$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31430661$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Muenzfeld, Hanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahjoub, Samy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roehle, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pelzer, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bahra, Marcus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boening, Georg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geisel, Dominik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auer, Timo Alexander</creatorcontrib><title>Split-bolus vs. multiphasic contrast bolus protocol in patients with pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma</title><title>European journal of radiology</title><addtitle>Eur J Radiol</addtitle><description>•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 < 0.001). The SBP showed higher contrast enhancement of all critical anatomical structures including portal vein, liver, and pancreas compared with the MPP, except for the aorta(SBP: 326.9 ± 15.7 HU vs. MPP: 246.7 ± 12.2 HU; p < 0.001).
Subjective analysis revealed poorer image quality ratings for important landmarks with the MPP (resection surface: p = 0.624, portal vein: p = 0.395, liver p = 0.361). The two blinded readers correlated significantly. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV), and overall interreader variabilities correlated significantly. Furthermore, significantly fewer slices per exam were required for the SBP(1,823 vs. 3,235; p < 0.001).
The SBP provides the same image quality and diagnostic accuracy as an MPP while significantly lowering radiation exposure in CT follow-up of PDAC or CC.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Bile Ducts - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Bile Ducts - radiation effects</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Cholangiocarcinoma</subject><subject>Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Clinical Protocols</subject><subject>Contrast Media - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Dose reduction</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Iohexol - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Iohexol - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>Iopamidol - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>Liver - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Liver - radiation effects</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Pancreas - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Pancreas - radiation effects</subject><subject>Pancreatic cancer</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Portal Vein - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Portal Vein - radiation effects</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiation Exposure</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Split-bolus CT</subject><subject>Split-bolus technique</subject><issn>0720-048X</issn><issn>1872-7727</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtOxCAUhonR6Hh5AhPD0k3rgdLSLlwY4y0xcaEm7ggF6jBpSwU6xrcXHXXpitv3n3P4EDomkBMg1dkqNysvdU6BNDnwHCjfQgtSc5pxTvk2WgCnkAGrX_bQfggrAChZQ3fRXkFYAVVFFqh_nHobs9b1c8DrkONh7qOdljJYhZUbo5ch4s3z5F10yvXYjniS0ZoxBvxu4zKdRuVNukqZtDUeO4_V0vVyfLVOSa_s6AZ5iHY62Qdz9LMeoOfrq6fL2-z-4ebu8uI-U0XZxKxsiCKMQtcyUnLaEeCStRqaumramnNd04qaRlOoQDJTa026gqkaEtIVwIoDdLqpmyZ-m02IYrBBmT6NY9wcBKU1lFXJqjKhxQZV3oXgTScmbwfpPwQB8aVZrMS3ZvGlWQAXSXNKnfw0mNvB6L_Mr9cEnG8Ak765tsaLoJIvZbT1RkWhnf23wSfGC5CH</recordid><startdate>201910</startdate><enddate>201910</enddate><creator>Muenzfeld, Hanna</creator><creator>Mahjoub, Samy</creator><creator>Roehle, Robert</creator><creator>Pelzer, Uwe</creator><creator>Bahra, Marcus</creator><creator>Boening, Georg</creator><creator>Hamm, Bernd</creator><creator>Geisel, Dominik</creator><creator>Auer, Timo Alexander</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5763-689X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1853</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201910</creationdate><title>Split-bolus vs. multiphasic contrast bolus protocol in patients with pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma</title><author>Muenzfeld, Hanna ; Mahjoub, Samy ; Roehle, Robert ; Pelzer, Uwe ; Bahra, Marcus ; Boening, Georg ; Hamm, Bernd ; Geisel, Dominik ; Auer, Timo Alexander</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-591c1420fb41572f107a4bd09869b877d8262e9d2060a4e8dd1f34c80d09f3043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Bile Ducts - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Bile Ducts - radiation effects</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Cholangiocarcinoma</topic><topic>Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Clinical Protocols</topic><topic>Contrast Media - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Dose reduction</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Iohexol - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Iohexol - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>Iopamidol - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>Liver - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Liver - radiation effects</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Pancreas - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Pancreas - radiation effects</topic><topic>Pancreatic cancer</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Portal Vein - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Portal Vein - radiation effects</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiation Exposure</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Split-bolus CT</topic><topic>Split-bolus technique</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Muenzfeld, Hanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahjoub, Samy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roehle, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pelzer, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bahra, Marcus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boening, Georg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geisel, Dominik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auer, Timo Alexander</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Muenzfeld, Hanna</au><au>Mahjoub, Samy</au><au>Roehle, Robert</au><au>Pelzer, Uwe</au><au>Bahra, Marcus</au><au>Boening, Georg</au><au>Hamm, Bernd</au><au>Geisel, Dominik</au><au>Auer, Timo Alexander</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Split-bolus vs. multiphasic contrast bolus protocol in patients with pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma</atitle><jtitle>European journal of radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Radiol</addtitle><date>2019-10</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>119</volume><spage>108626</spage><epage>108626</epage><pages>108626-108626</pages><artnum>108626</artnum><issn>0720-048X</issn><eissn>1872-7727</eissn><abstract>•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 < 0.001). The SBP showed higher contrast enhancement of all critical anatomical structures including portal vein, liver, and pancreas compared with the MPP, except for the aorta(SBP: 326.9 ± 15.7 HU vs. MPP: 246.7 ± 12.2 HU; p < 0.001).
Subjective analysis revealed poorer image quality ratings for important landmarks with the MPP (resection surface: p = 0.624, portal vein: p = 0.395, liver p = 0.361). The two blinded readers correlated significantly. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV), and overall interreader variabilities correlated significantly. Furthermore, significantly fewer slices per exam were required for the SBP(1,823 vs. 3,235; p < 0.001).
The SBP provides the same image quality and diagnostic accuracy as an MPP while significantly lowering radiation exposure in CT follow-up of PDAC or CC.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>31430661</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.027</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5763-689X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1853</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0720-048X |
| ispartof | European journal of radiology, 2019-10, Vol.119, p.108626-108626, Article 108626 |
| issn | 0720-048X 1872-7727 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2280565465 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Aged Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Bile Ducts - diagnostic imaging Bile Ducts - radiation effects Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging Cholangiocarcinoma Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnostic imaging Clinical Protocols Contrast Media - administration & dosage Dose reduction Female Humans Iohexol - administration & dosage Iohexol - analogs & derivatives Iopamidol - administration & dosage Iopamidol - analogs & derivatives Liver - diagnostic imaging Liver - radiation effects Male Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnostic imaging Pancreas - diagnostic imaging Pancreas - radiation effects Pancreatic cancer Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Portal Vein - diagnostic imaging Portal Vein - radiation effects Prospective Studies Radiation Dosage Radiation Exposure Sensitivity and Specificity Split-bolus CT Split-bolus technique |
| title | Split-bolus vs. multiphasic contrast bolus protocol in patients with pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T10%3A39%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Split-bolus%20vs.%20multiphasic%20contrast%20bolus%20protocol%20in%20patients%20with%20pancreatic%20cancer%20or%20cholangiocarcinoma&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20radiology&rft.au=Muenzfeld,%20Hanna&rft.date=2019-10&rft.volume=119&rft.spage=108626&rft.epage=108626&rft.pages=108626-108626&rft.artnum=108626&rft.issn=0720-048X&rft.eissn=1872-7727&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.027&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2280565465%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2280565465&rft_id=info:pmid/31430661&rft_els_id=S0720048X19302700&rfr_iscdi=true |