OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the amount of tagged stool and fluid significantly affects the radiation exposure in low-dose screening CT colonography performed with an automatic tube-current modulation technique. METHODS: The study included 311 patients. The tagging agent was barium (n = 271) or iodine (n = 40). Correlation was measured between mean volume CT dose index (CTDI (vol)) and the estimated x-ray attenuation of the tagged stool and fluid (ATT). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to determine the effect of ATT on CTDI (vol ) and the effect of ATT on image noise while adjusting for other variables including abdominal circumference. RESULTS: CTDI (vol) varied from 0.88 to 2.54 mGy. There was no significant correlation between CTDI (vol) and ATT (p = 0.61). ATT did not significantly affect CTDI (vol) (p = 0.93), while abdominal circumference was the only factor significantly affecting CTDI (vol) (p < 0.001). Image noise ranged from 59.5 to 64.1 HU. The p value for the regression model explaining the noise was 0.38. CONCLUSION: The amount of stool and fluid tagging does not significantly affect radiation exposure.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the amount of tagged stool and fluid significantly affects the radiation exposure in low-dose screening CT colonography performed with an automatic tube-current modulation technique. METHODS: The study included 311 patients. The tagging agent was barium (n = 271) or iodine (n = 40). Correlation was measured between mean volume CT dose index (CTDI (vol)) and the estimated x-ray attenuation of the tagged stool and fluid (ATT). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to determine the effect of ATT on CTDI (vol ) and the effect of ATT on image noise while adjusting for other variables including abdominal circumference. RESULTS: CTDI (vol) varied from 0.88 to 2.54 mGy. There was no significant correlation between CTDI (vol) and ATT (p = 0.61). ATT did not significantly affect CTDI (vol) (p = 0.93), while abdominal circumference was the only factor significantly affecting CTDI (vol) (p < 0.001). Image noise ranged from 59.5 to 64.1 HU. The p value for the regression model explaining the noise was 0.38. CONCLUSION: The amount of stool and fluid tagging does not significantly affect radiation exposure.
Authors: Ronald M Summers; Marek Franaszek; Meghan T Miller; Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; William R Schindler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael E Zalis; James J Perumpillichira; Cordula Magee; Gavriel Kohlberg; Peter F Hahn Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stefania M R Rizzo; Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Michael A Blake; Thomas L Toth; Sanjay Saini Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Alicia Y Toledano; Jay P Heiken; Abraham Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Amy K Hara; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; Lawrence J Burgart; Paul J Limburg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sangbu An; Kyoung Ho Lee; Young Hoon Kim; Seong Ho Park; Hyun Young Kim; Se Hyung Kim; Nayoung Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702