Screening CT colonography

Evaluation of dose exposure in 64-slice CT colonography

The radiation exposure of four different 64-slice MDCT-colonography (CTC) protocols was evaluated using an Alderson-Rando phantom. Protocols using 30 mAs (collimation 20 x 1.2 mm), 50 mAs (collimation 20 x 1.2 and 64 x 0.6 mm) and 80 mAs (20 x 1.2 mm) representing screening low-dose, routine, narrow collimation and oncologic staging setups were measured with an Alderson-Rando phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories Inc.). Scans were performed on a 64-row MDCT (SOMATOM Sensation 64, Siemens) simulating the prone and supine positions with a constant voltage of 120 kV. Dose values (male/female) were 2.5/2.9, 3.8/4.2, 4.2/4.5 and 5.7/6.4 mSv for 30, 50 (20 x 1.2 and 64 x 0.6 mm) and 80 mAs, respectively. Measurements showed an elevated dose for females (11.5% mean; compared to males). Use of narrow collimation combined with 50 mAs resulted in a small increase of dose exposure of 10.5 (male) and 7.1% (female). Gonad doses ranged from 0.9 to 2.6 mSv (male) and from 1.5 to 3.5 mSv (female). In all protocols, the stomach wall, lower colon, urinary bladder and liver were slightly more highly exposed (all <2.3 mSv) than the other organs, and the breast dose was <0.3 mSv in every setup. Values of radiation exposure in 64- and 16-slice CTC differ only marginally when using the narrow collimation. In 64-slice CTC, the use of narrow (64 x 0.6 mm) collimation shows slightly elevated dose values compared to wider (20 x 1.2 mm) collimation.

Individually Adapted Examination Protocols for Reduction of Radiation Exposure for 16-MDCT Chest Examinations

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to develop a simple protocol for reduction of radiation exposure without loss of diagnostic information in chest 16-MDCT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred and four patients underwent MDCT of the thorax (Somatom Sensation 16, Siemens). Group 1 was scanned using a standard protocol with 100 mAs(effective) (mAs(eff)). Group 2 was scanned using a dose modulation template (CareDose). Group 3 was scanned with mAs(eff) = body weight (kg). Group 4 was scanned with a combination of weight-adapted mAs(eff) and dose modulation. All other parameters were kept constant. Signal-to-noise ratio was assessed as an objective measurement for image quality, and subjective image quality was rated by three experienced radiologists on a 4-point scale. Effective dose was calculated using dedicated software.

RESULTS

The mean noise measurement values were 8.31 H for the 100 mAs(eff) protocol for the regression between weight and signal-to-noise (p < 0.0001), 9.08 H for group 2 (p < 0.0001), 9.0 H for group 3 (p = 0.5051), and 9.98 H for group 4 (p = 0.0152). The median image quality was 1 (1 = highest quality) in all subgroups. The mean effective dose was 6.83 mSv, 5.92 mSv, 4.73 mSv, and 3.97 mSv, respectively. The least correlation between weight and image noise was achieved for the individually weight-adapted protocol and in the weight-adapted with CareDose combination.

CONCLUSION

By tube current time product adaptation (kg = mAs(eff)) combined with an online tube current modulation template, a well-balanced examination without significant loss of information was achieved for this specific scanner. Thus, individually adapted protocols for chest 16-MDCT can be recommended.

Prevalence and impact of extracolonic findings in patients undergoing CT colonography

BACKGROUND

CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) is a new technique being offered to patients as a noninvasive method of imaging the colon. The aims of this study were to prospectively determine the prevalence of extracolonic findings in patients undergoing CT colonography, as well as to determine the clinical significance and consequences of these findings.

METHODS

Two-hundred and fifty patients who were referred for colonoscopy for clinically indicated reasons underwent CT colonography using low-dose radiation (50 mAs) immediately prior to conventional colonoscopy. A single radiologist reviewed the CT images for extracolonic pathology, and findings were classified as having high, moderate, or low clinical significance. Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess what follow up diagnostic tests, if any, were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 136 extracolonic findings were detected in 83 (33.2%) of the 250 patients. Of these 136 findings, 17 (12.5%) were highly significant, 53 (38.9%) were moderately significant, and 66 (48.5%) were of low significance. The most common highly significant lesions were solitary lung nodules in 3 patients, mesenteric lymphadenopathy in 3, adrenal masses in 2, low attenuation liver lesions consistent with metastases in 2, and bone metastases in 2 patients. Fourteen of the 17 (82.4%) highly significant findings were new findings, and in 11 the extracolonic abnormalities resulted in further diagnostic testing. None of the patients with moderate or low significance lesions underwent further testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose CT colonography can detect highly significant extracolonic findings. Although extracolonic lesions were common, only a small proportion of patients required further diagnostic testing. Additional studies to determine the optimal radiation dose, cost-effectiveness, and legal implications of detecting extracolonic findings are warranted.

Multislice CT colonography: current status and limitations

CT colonography (CTC) is a promising method for colorectal screening providing a full structural evaluation of the entire colon and gaining in popularity due to a superior safety profile, a low rate of complications, and high patient acceptance. Multislice CT (MSCT) has further improved the diagnostic potential of CTC by generating high-resolution CT images of the abdomen and pelvis in shorter acquisition times than was previously possible. Over the past year, multiple studies have been published on every aspect of CTC including techniques, image display, image reconstruction, and clinical trial results assessing the feasibility of CTC as a screening tool. Yet despite increasing clinical use, the appropriate role of CTC in colorectal cancer screening remains undefined and barriers to widespread adoption remain. In particular, though the test is generally regarded as easy to perform, accurate interpretation requires a steep learning curve. While several large studies have found high sensitivity and specificity, the accuracy of CTC in a screening population has yet to be verified and almost no health insurance plans reimburse for its use in colorectal screening. Ongoing research in computer-aided detection and new software tools, however, have the potential to increase accuracy and ease of interpretation significantly, accelerating its acceptance as a colorectal screening tool.