O'Regan PW, Dewhurst C, O'Mahony AT, O'Regan C, O'Leary V, O'Connor G, Ryan D, Maher MM, Young R. Split-bolus single-phase versus single-bolus split-phase CT acquisition protocols for staging in patients with testicular cancer: A retrospective study.
Radiography (Lond) 2024;
30:628-633. [PMID:
38330895 DOI:
10.1016/j.radi.2024.01.020]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/27/2024] [Indexed: 02/10/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Computed tomography (CT) imaging has become indispensable in the management of medical oncology patients. Risks associated with high cumulative effective dose (CED) are relevant in testicular cancer patients. Split-bolus protocols, whereby the contrast medium injection is divided into two, followed by combining the required phase images in a single scan acquisition has been shown to provide images of comparable image quality and less radiation dose compared to single-bolus split-phase CT for various indications. We retrospectively evaluated the performance of split-bolus and single-bolus protocols in patients having follow-up CT imaging for testicular cancer surveillance.
METHODS
45 patients with testicular cancer undergoing surveillance CT imaging of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis who underwent split-bolus and single-bolus protocols were included. Quantitative image quality analysis was conducted by placing region of interests in pre-defined anatomical sub-structures within the abdominal cavity. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and radiation dose in the form of dose length product (DLP) and effective dose (ED) were recorded.
RESULTS
The DLP and ED for the single-bolus, split-phase acquisition was 506 ± 89 mGy cm and 7.59 ± 1.3 mSv, respectively. For the split-bolus, single-phase acquisition, 397 ± 94 mGy∗cm and 5.95 ± 1.4 mSv, respectively (p < 0.000). This represented a 21.5 % reduction in radiation dose exposure. The SNR for liver, muscle and fat for the single-bolus were 7.4, 4.7 and 8, respectively, compared to 5.5, 3.8 and 7.4 in the split-bolus protocol (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
In a testicular cancer patient cohort undergoing surveillance CT imaging, utilization of a split-bolus single-phase acquisition CT protocol enabled a significant reduction in radiation dose whilst maintaining subjective diagnostic acceptability.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Use of split-bolus, single-phase acquisition has the potential to reduce CED in surveillance of testicular cancer patients.
Collapse