BACKGROUND: In children who have undergone both 99mTc-DMSA and 99mTc-MAG3 studies for the assessment of differential renal function (DRF) and drainage, respectively, we have noticed good agreement between the calculated DRF values, and hypothesized that there is no significant difference in DRF values calculated from these tests. Therefore, both tests may not always be necessary. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between DRF values calculated using 99mTc-DMSA and those calculated using 99mTc-MAG3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified children imaged with 99mTc-DMSA and 99mTc-MAG3. We recorded DRF values, age, indication, and renal pelvis diameter. For the 99mTc-DMSA studies we recorded the imaging time after injection. For the 99mTc-MAG3 studies we recorded the delay between injection and data acquisition, diuretic use and evidence of delayed drainage or reflux. RESULTS: We identified 100 episodes in 92 children where both 99mTc-DMSA and 99mTc-MAG3 scans had been performed within a few days. The commonest indication was urinary tract infection or pelviureteric junction obstruction. The mean age of the children was 6.96 years. A significant but clinically acceptable trend was seen between abnormal DRF and difference between tests. A significant link was found with the difference between tests and the time of imaging after DMSA injection, and also with scarring. No significant effect was caused by renal pelvis dilatation, delayed drainage, frusemide administration, or delayed 99mTc-MAG3 imaging. CONCLUSION: If a 99mTc-MAG3 study has been performed then a 99mTc-DMSA study is unnecessary provided DRF is normal on the 99mTc-MAG3 study and there is no scarring. A change in practice would lead to considerable savings in time, cost and radiation burden.
BACKGROUND: In children who have undergone both 99mTc-DMSA and 99mTc-MAG3 studies for the assessment of differential renal function (DRF) and drainage, respectively, we have noticed good agreement between the calculated DRF values, and hypothesized that there is no significant difference in DRF values calculated from these tests. Therefore, both tests may not always be necessary. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between DRF values calculated using 99mTc-DMSA and those calculated using 99mTc-MAG3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified children imaged with 99mTc-DMSA and 99mTc-MAG3. We recorded DRF values, age, indication, and renal pelvis diameter. For the 99mTc-DMSA studies we recorded the imaging time after injection. For the 99mTc-MAG3 studies we recorded the delay between injection and data acquisition, diuretic use and evidence of delayed drainage or reflux. RESULTS: We identified 100 episodes in 92 children where both 99mTc-DMSA and 99mTc-MAG3 scans had been performed within a few days. The commonest indication was urinary tract infection or pelviureteric junction obstruction. The mean age of the children was 6.96 years. A significant but clinically acceptable trend was seen between abnormal DRF and difference between tests. A significant link was found with the difference between tests and the time of imaging after DMSA injection, and also with scarring. No significant effect was caused by renal pelvis dilatation, delayed drainage, frusemide administration, or delayed 99mTc-MAG3 imaging. CONCLUSION: If a 99mTc-MAG3 study has been performed then a 99mTc-DMSA study is unnecessary provided DRF is normal on the 99mTc-MAG3 study and there is no scarring. A change in practice would lead to considerable savings in time, cost and radiation burden.
Authors: I Gordon; P Colarinha; J Fettich; S Fischer; J Frökier; K Hahn; L Kabasakal; M Mitjavila; P Olivier; A Piepsz; U Porn; R Sixt; J van Velzen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 2001-03
Authors: G A Mandell; D F Eggli; D L Gilday; S Heyman; J C Leonard; J H Miller; H R Nadel; S T Treves Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dmitry Khrichenko; David Saul; Melkamu Adeb; Camilo Jaimes; Khalil N Betts; Stephanie M Barron; J Christopher Edgar; Sarah M Lambert; Pasquale Casale; Kassa Darge Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-01-21
Authors: Emil Schüler; Maria Larsson; Toshima Z Parris; Martin E Johansson; Khalil Helou; Eva Forssell-Aronsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anitha Dharmalingam; Shwetal U Pawar; Sandesh V Parelkar; Suruchi S Shetye; Mangala K Ghorpade; Gundu H Tilve Journal: Indian J Nucl Med Date: 2017 Apr-Jun