Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. CT Urography Technique
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. CTU Technique—Comparison to the Literature
4.2. Radiation Dose of CTU
4.3. Is the Excretory Phase at CTU Necessary?
4.4. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wolfman, D.; Marko, J.; Nikolaidis, P.; Khatri, G.; Dogra, V.; Ganeshan, D.; Goldfarb, S.; Gore, J.; Gupta, R.; Heilbrun, M.; et al. American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Hematuria. Available online: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69490/Narrative/ (accessed on 14 January 2020).
- Davis, R.; Jones, J.S.; Barocas, D.A.; Castle, E.P.; Lang, E.K.; Leveillee, R.J.; Messing, E.M.; Miller, S.D.; Peterson, A.C.; Turk, T.M.; et al. Diagnosis, evaluation and follow-up of asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH) in adults: AUA guideline. J. Urol. 2012, 188, 2473–2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nielsen, M.; Qaseem, A. Hematuria as a Marker of Occult Urinary Tract Cancer: Advice for High-Value Care from the American College of Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 2016, 164, 488–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potenta, S.E.; D’Agostino, R.; Sternberg, K.M.; Tatsumi, K.; Perusse, K. CT Urography for Evaluation of the Ureter. Radiographics 2015, 35, 709–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Silverman, S.G.; Leyendecker, J.R.; Amis, E.S., Jr. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology 2009, 250, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noorbakhsh, A.; Aganovic, L.; Vahdat, N.; Fazeli, S.; Chung, R.; Cassidy, F. What a difference a delay makes! CT urogram: A pictorial essay. Abdom. Radiol. 2019, 44, 3919–3934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, K.; Cassidy, F.; Aganovic, L.; Taddonio, M.; Vahdat, N. CT urography: How to optimize the technique. Abdom. Radiol. 2019, 44, 3786–3799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisanti, C.J.; Toffoli, T.J.; Stringer, M.T.; DeWitt, R.M.; Schwope, R.B. CT evaluation of the upper urinary tract in adults younger than 50 years with asymptomatic microscopic hematuria: Is IV contrast enhancement needed? Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014, 203, 615–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brenner, D.J.; Hall, E.J. Computed Tomography—An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357, 2277–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hanley, M.; Koonce, J.; Bradshaw, M. XrayRisk.com. Available online: https://www.xrayrisk.com/index.php (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- Raman, S.P.; Fishman, E.K. Upper and Lower Tract Urothelial Imaging Using Computed Tomography Urography. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 55, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dillman, J.R.; Caoili, E.M.; Cohan, R.H.; Ellis, J.H.; Francis, I.R.; Nan, B.; Zhang, Y. Comparison of urinary tract distension and opacification using single-bolus 3-Phase vs split-bolus 2-phase multidetector row CT urography. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2007, 31, 750–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maheshwari, E.; O’Malley, M.E.; Ghai, S.; Staunton, M.; Massey, C. Split-bolus MDCT urography: Upper tract opacification and performance for upper tract tumors in patients with hematuria. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010, 194, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, D.; Cho, E.-S.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, Y.P.; Lee, H.-K.; Yu, J.-S.; Chung, J.-J. Optimization of Split-Bolus CT Urography: Effect of Differences in Allocation of Contrast Medium and Prolongation of Imaging Delay. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017, 209, W10–W17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gershan, V.; Homayounieh, F.; Singh, R.; Avramova-Cholakova, S.; Faj, D.; Georgiev, E.; Girjoaba, O.; Griciene, B.; Gruppetta, E.; Simonji, D.H.; et al. CT protocols and radiation doses for hematuria and urinary stones: Comparing practices in 20 countries. Eur. J. Radiol. 2020, 126, 108923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Renard-Penna, R.; Rocher, L.; Roy, C.; Andre, M.; Bellin, M.F.; Boulay, I.; Eiss, D.; Girouin, N.; Grenier, N.; Helenon, O.; et al. Imaging protocols for CT urography: Results of a consensus conference from the French Society of Genitourinary Imaging. Eur. Radiol. 2020, 30, 1387–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaish, H.; Newhouse, J.H. Split-bolus CT urogram: Is less more? Abdom. Radiol. 2017, 42, 2119–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heller, M.T.; Tublin, M.E. In search of a consensus: Evaluation of the patient with hematuria in an era of cost containment. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014, 202, 1179–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yecies, T.; Bandari, J.; Fam, M.; Macleod, L.; Jacobs, B.; Davies, B. Risk of Radiation from Computerized Tomography Urography in the Evaluation of Asymptomatic Microscopic Hematuria. J. Urol. 2018, 200, 967–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lokken, R.P.; Sadow, C.A.; Silverman, S.G. Diagnostic yield of CT urography in the evaluation of young adults with hematuria. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2012, 198, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenwick, A.K.C.; Sala, E.; Canales, D.D. Prevalence of Urologic Disease Among Patients Investigated for Hematuria with CT Urography. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2020, 72, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Der Molen, A.J.; Cowan, N.C.; Mueller-Lisse, U.G.; Nolte-Ernsting, C.C.; Takahashi, S.; Cohan, R.H. CT urography: Definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur. Radiol. 2008, 18, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hack, K.; Pinto, P.A.; Gollub, M.J. Targeted delayed scanning at CT urography: A worthwhile use of radiation? Radiology 2012, 265, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rud, E.; Galtung, K.F.; Lauritzen, P.M.; Baco, E.; Flatabo, T.; Sandbaek, G. Examining the upper urinary tract in patients with hematuria-time to revise the CT urography protocol? Eur. Radiol. 2020, 30, 1664–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Characteristic | A: Split Bolus Patients <50 Years Old | B: Split Bolus Patients ≥50 Years Old | C: Single Bolus Patients ≥50 Years Old | p-Value (One-Way ANOVA) | p-Value (Tukey’s Test) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years), mean ± SD | 38.6 ± 8.1 | 68.6 ± 10.1 | 66.8 ± 9.6 | - | - |
Sex | |||||
Male | 24 | 44 | 68 | 0.48 | |
Female | 24 | 36 | 45 | ||
Total scan time (min:s), mean ± SD | 17:26 ± 44 | 16:18 ± 77 | 11:18 ± 113 | <0.0001 | A:B 0.22 |
A:C < 0.0001 | |||||
B:C < 0.0001 | |||||
Number of excretory phases acquired | - | ||||
1 | 23 | 43 | 80 | 0.006 | |
≥2 | 25 | 37 | 32 | ||
1st excretory phase contrast opacification | - | ||||
<50% | 8 | 12 | 8 | ||
50–75% | 14 | 28 | 30 | 0.13 | |
75–100% | 26 | 40 | 74 | ||
2nd excretory phase contrast opacification | - | ||||
<50% | 2 | 8 | 8 | ||
50–75% | 9 | 14 | 13 | 0.41 | |
75–100% | 14 | 15 | 11 | ||
Total dose-length product (mGy·cm), mean ± SD | 1041 ± 531 | 1137 ± 646 | 1422 ± 837 | 0.003 | A:B 0.75 |
A:C 0.008 | |||||
B:C 0.02 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Morrison, N.; Bryden, S.; Costa, A.F. Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose. Tomography 2021, 7, 210-218. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7020019
Morrison N, Bryden S, Costa AF. Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose. Tomography. 2021; 7(2):210-218. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7020019
Chicago/Turabian StyleMorrison, Nicole, Sherrie Bryden, and Andreu F. Costa. 2021. "Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose" Tomography 7, no. 2: 210-218. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7020019