Automated contrast medium monitoring system for computed tomography--Intra-institutional audit

Evaluation of Iodinated Contrast Media Use in Abdominal CT Scans in Cancer Assessments: A Cross-Sectional Study in Lomé (Togo)

Background

There is great variability between centers regarding contrast injection protocols. They should only be injected if they can provide useful information for diagnosis with the necessary and sufficient quantity of iodine. We wanted to know through this study if the use of iodinated contrast media is optimised in abdominal CT scans performed for cancer assessment in Lomé.

Materials and Methods

It was a cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical study with a prospective collection over a period of 6 months in three CT units in Lomé. It involved abdominal CT scans performed for oncological evaluation. Data were reported as the mean ± standard deviation. The Pearson correlation coefficient, ANOVA, chi-square, and the Fisher test were used.

Results

A total of 218 examinations were recorded. The female sex represented 56.88% of the patients. The mean age was 50.92 ± 15.78 years. The mean weight was 70.46 ± 15.23 kg. The mean BMI was 24.91 ± 5.32 kg/m². The examinations were performed with a voltage of 120 kV in 195 cases (89.45%). The mean dose of injected iodine was 0.42 ± 0.09 gI/kg with a dose of 0.40 gI/kg at 80 kV and 0.45 gI/kg at 130 kV. The mean injection rate was 2.90 ± 0.34 mL/s. The mean injected volume was 83.19 ± 7.29 mL. The mean duration of the injection was 30.60 ± 7.39 s. The mean iodine delivery rate was 0.98 ± 0.17 gI/s. There was no saline injection in 152 cases (69.72%). Liver contrast enhancement was satisfactory in 94.5% of cases. There was a strong negative linear correlation between the dose of injected iodine and weight.

Conclusions

Optimization guidelines for the use of iodinated contrast media are not always applied. Therefore, monitoring and benchmarking programmes for iodinated contrast injection protocols that involve all radiology personnel should be implemented.

A Metric for Quantification of Iodine Contrast Enhancement (Q-ICE) in Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

Poor contrast enhancement is related to issues with examination execution, contrast prescription, computed tomography (CT) protocols, and patient conditions. Currently, our community has no metric to monitor true enhancement on routine single-phase examinations because this requires knowledge of both pre- and postcontrast CT number.

PURPOSE

We propose an automatable solution to quantifying contrast enhancement without requiring a dedicated noncontrast series.

METHODS

The difference in CT number between a target region in an enhanced and unenhanced image defines the metric "quantification of iodine contrast enhancement" (Q-ICE). Quantification of iodine contrast enhancement uses the noncontrast bolus tracking baseline image from routine abdominal examinations, which mitigates the need for a dedicated noncontrast series. We applied this method retrospectively to 312 patient livers from 2 sites between 2017 and 2020. Each site used a weight-based contrast injection protocol for weights 60 to 113 kg and a constant volume less than 60 kg and greater than 113 kg. Hypothesis testing was performed to compare Q-ICE between sites and detect Q-ICE dependence on weight and kilovoltage (kV).

RESULTS

Mean Q-ICE differed between sites (P = 0.004) by 4.96 Hounsfield unit with 95% confidence interval (1.63-8.28), albeit this difference was roughly 2 times smaller than the SD in Q-ICE across patients at a single site. For patients between 60 and 113 kg, we did not observe evidence of Q-ICE varying with patient weight (P = 0.920 and 0.064 for 120 and 140 kV, respectively). The Q-ICE did vary with patient weight for patients less than 60 kg (P = 0.003) and greater than 113 kg (P = 0.04). We observed a roughly 10 Hounsfield unit reduction in Q-ICE liver for patients scanned with 140 versus 120 kV. We observed several underenhancing examinations with an arterial phase appearance motivating our CT protocol optimization team to consider increasing the delay for slowly enhancing patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A quality metric for quantifying CT contrast enhancement was developed and suggested tangible opportunities for quality improvement and potential financial savings.

Dematerialisation of patient's informed consent in radiology: insights on current status and radiologists' opinion from an Italian online survey

PURPOSE

To assess the current status of patient's informed consent (PIC) management at radiological centres and the overall opinion of radiologist active members of the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) about PIC dematerialisation through an online survey.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All members were invited to join the survey as an initiative by the Imaging Informatics Chapter of SIRM. The survey consisted of 11 multiple-choice questions about participants' demographics, current local modalities of PIC acquisition and storage, perceived advantages and disadvantages of PIC dematerialisation over conventional paper-based PIC, and overall opinion about PIC dematerialisation.

RESULTS

A total of 1791 radiologists (amounting to 17.4% of active SIRM members for the year 2016) joined the survey. Perceived advantages of PIC dematerialisation were easier and faster PIC recovery (96.5%), safer storage and conservation (94.5%), and reduced costs (90.7%). Conversely, the need to create dedicated areas for PIC acquisition inside each radiological unit (64.0%) and to gain preliminary approval for the use of advanced digital signature tools from patients (51.8%) were seen as potential disadvantages. Overall, 94.5% of respondents had a positive opinion about PIC dematerialisation.

CONCLUSION

Radiologists were mostly favourable to PIC dematerialisation. However, concerns were raised that its practical implementation might face hurdles due to its complexity in current real life working conditions.

Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess the opinion on structured reporting (SR) and its usage by radiologist members of the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) via an online survey.

METHODS

All members received an email invitation to join the survey as an initiative by the SIRM Imaging Informatics Chapter. The survey included 10 questions about demographic information, definition of radiological SR, its usage in everyday practice, perceived advantages and disadvantages over conventional reporting and overall opinion about SR.

RESULTS

1159 SIRM members participated in the survey. 40.3 % of respondents gave a correct definition of radiological SR, but as many as 56 % of them never used it at work. Compared with conventional reporting, the most appreciated advantages of SR were higher reproducibility (70.5 %), better interaction with referring clinicians (58.3 %) and the option to link metadata (36.7 %). Risk of excessive simplification (59.8 %), template rigidity (56.1 %) and poor user compliance (42.1 %) were the most significant disadvantages. Overall, most respondents (87.0 %) were in favour of the adoption of radiological SR.

CONCLUSIONS

Most radiologists were interested in radiological SR and in favour of its adoption. However, concerns about semantic, technical and professional issues limited its diffusion in real working life, encouraging efforts towards improved SR standardisation and engineering.

KEY POINTS

• Despite radiologists' awareness, radiological SR is little used in working practice. • Perceived SR advantages are reproducibility, better clinico-radiological interaction and link to metadata. • Perceived SR disadvantages are excessive simplification, template rigidity and poor user compliance. • Improved standardisation and engineering may be helpful to boost SR diffusion.