PURPOSE: To compare the image quality and acceptability of a low dose with those of standard dose abdominal/pelvic multidetector CT in patients with stage 1 testicular cancer managed by surveillance. METHODS: One hundred patients (median age 31 years; range 19-83 years), 79 with seminoma and 21 with non-seminoma, underwent abdominal/pelvic imaging with low and standard dose protocols on 64-slice multidetector CT. Three reviewers independently evaluated images for noise and diagnostic quality on a 5-point scale and for diagnostic acceptability. RESULTS: On average, each reader scored noise and diagnostic quality of standard dose images significantly better than corresponding low dose images (p < 0.0001). One reader found all CT examinations acceptable; two readers each found 1/100 (1%) low dose examinations unacceptable. Median and mean dose-length product for low and standard dose protocols were 416.0 and 452.2 (range 122.9-913.4) and 931.9 and 999.8 (range 283.8-1,987.7) mGy cm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The low dose protocol provided diagnostically acceptable images for at least 99% of patients and achieved mean dose reduction of 55% compared with the standard dose protocol.
PURPOSE: To compare the image quality and acceptability of a low dose with those of standard dose abdominal/pelvic multidetector CT in patients with stage 1 testicular cancer managed by surveillance. METHODS: One hundred patients (median age 31 years; range 19-83 years), 79 with seminoma and 21 with non-seminoma, underwent abdominal/pelvic imaging with low and standard dose protocols on 64-slice multidetector CT. Three reviewers independently evaluated images for noise and diagnostic quality on a 5-point scale and for diagnostic acceptability. RESULTS: On average, each reader scored noise and diagnostic quality of standard dose images significantly better than corresponding low dose images (p < 0.0001). One reader found all CT examinations acceptable; two readers each found 1/100 (1%) low dose examinations unacceptable. Median and mean dose-length product for low and standard dose protocols were 416.0 and 452.2 (range 122.9-913.4) and 931.9 and 999.8 (range 283.8-1,987.7) mGy cm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The low dose protocol provided diagnostically acceptable images for at least 99% of patients and achieved mean dose reduction of 55% compared with the standard dose protocol.
Authors: J R Spermon; T A Roeleveld; H G van der Poel; C A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; W W Ten Bokkel Huinink; M van de Vijver; J A Witjes; S Horenblas Journal: Urology Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Tracy A Jaffe; Ana Maria Gaca; Susan Delaney; Terry T Yoshizumi; Greta Toncheva; Giao Nguyen; Donald P Frush Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S A Sohaib; D M Koh; Y Barbachano; J Parikh; J E S Husband; D P Dearnaley; A Horwich; R Huddart Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Susanne Krege; Jörg Beyer; Rainer Souchon; Peter Albers; Walter Albrecht; Ferran Algaba; Michael Bamberg; István Bodrogi; Carsten Bokemeyer; Eva Cavallin-Ståhl; Johannes Classen; Christoph Clemm; Gabriella Cohn-Cedermark; Stéphane Culine; Gedske Daugaard; Pieter H M De Mulder; Maria De Santis; Maike de Wit; Ronald de Wit; Hans Günter Derigs; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Annette Dieing; Jean-Pierre Droz; Martin Fenner; Karim Fizazi; Aude Flechon; Sophie D Fosså; Xavier Garcia del Muro; Thomas Gauler; Lajos Geczi; Arthur Gerl; Jose Ramon Germa-Lluch; Silke Gillessen; Jörg T Hartmann; Michael Hartmann; Axel Heidenreich; Wolfgang Hoeltl; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Michael Jewett; Johnathan Joffe; William G Jones; László Kisbenedek; Olbjørn Klepp; Sabine Kliesch; Kai Uwe Koehrmann; Christian Kollmannsberger; Markus Kuczyk; Pilar Laguna; Oscar Leiva Galvis; Volker Loy; Malcolm D Mason; Graham M Mead; Rolf Mueller; Craig Nichols; Nicola Nicolai; Tim Oliver; Dalibor Ondrus; Gosse O N Oosterhof; Luis Paz Ares; Giorgio Pizzocaro; Jörg Pont; Tobias Pottek; Tom Powles; Oliver Rick; Giovanni Rosti; Roberto Salvioni; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Hans-Ulrich Schmelz; Heinz Schmidberger; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Mark Schrader; Felix Sedlmayer; Niels E Skakkebaek; Aslam Sohaib; Sergei Tjulandin; Padraig Warde; Stefan Weinknecht; Lothar Weissbach; Christian Wittekind; Eva Winter; Lori Wood; Hans von der Maase Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Joan P Heneghan; Keith A McGuire; Richard A Leder; David M DeLong; Terry Yoshizumi; Rendon C Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter J Gariscsak; Lynn Anson-Cartwright; Eshetu G Atenafu; Di Maria Jiang; Peter Chung; Philippe Bedard; Padraig Warde; Martin O'Malley; Joan Sweet; Rachel M Glicksman; Robert J Hamilton Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-04-27
Authors: Pari V Pandharipande; Jonathan D Eisenberg; Richard J Lee; Michael E Gilmore; Ekin A Turan; Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Bob Liu; Chung Yin Kong; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gregory J Nason; Ricardo A Rendon; Lori Wood; Robert A Huddart; Peter Albers; Lawrence H Einhorn; Craig R Nichols; Christian Kollmannsberger; Lynn Anson-Cartwright; Padraig Warde; Michael A S Jewett; Peter Chung; Philippe L Bedard; Aaron R Hansen; Robert J Hamilton Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Hester Lieng; Padraig Warde; Philippe Bedard; Robert J Hamilton; Aaron R Hansen; Michael A S Jewett; Martin O'malley; Joan Sweet; Peter Chung Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Kevin P Murphy; Lee Crush; Siobhan B O'Neill; James Foody; Micheál Breen; Adrian Brady; Paul J Kelly; Derek G Power; Paul Sweeney; Jackie Bye; Owen J O'Connor; Michael M Maher; Kevin N O'Regan Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2016-02-16