-
Comparative Study
Split-bolus vs. multiphasic contrast bolus protocol in patients with pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma.
- Hanna Muenzfeld, Samy Mahjoub, Robert Roehle, Uwe Pelzer, Marcus Bahra, Georg Boening, Bernd Hamm, Dominik Geisel, and Timo Alexander Auer.
- Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: hanna.muenzfeld@charite.de.
- Eur J Radiol. 2019 Oct 1; 119: 108626.
PurposeTo 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).Materials And MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThe 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.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.