PURPOSE: To determine if a 20 % reduction in the contrast material dose is acceptable in the CT evaluation of patients with head and neck malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with head and neck malignancy underwent contrast-enhanced CT according to two different protocols: protocol A (80 mL of contrast material administered at an injection rate of 1.5 mL/s) and protocol B (100 mL at 1.9 mL/s). The enhancement of anatomical structures and detectability of metastatic nodes were compared between the two protocols. Pathologic analysis of the surgical resection served as the reference standard. RESULTS: CT numbers of the anatomical structures were not significantly different between the two protocols. Mean sensitivity (64 and 77 % for protocols A and B, respectively), specificity (78 and 84 %), and accuracy (74 and 83 %) tended to be higher for protocol B than for A, but no significant difference was found. CONCLUSION: Reducing the contrast material dose by 20 % did not significantly impair the enhancement of anatomical structures or the detection of metastatic cervical lymph nodes. Radiologists should therefore consider reducing the contrast material dose used in head and neck CT.
PURPOSE: To determine if a 20 % reduction in the contrast material dose is acceptable in the CT evaluation of patients with head and neck malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with head and neck malignancy underwent contrast-enhanced CT according to two different protocols: protocol A (80 mL of contrast material administered at an injection rate of 1.5 mL/s) and protocol B (100 mL at 1.9 mL/s). The enhancement of anatomical structures and detectability of metastatic nodes were compared between the two protocols. Pathologic analysis of the surgical resection served as the reference standard. RESULTS: CT numbers of the anatomical structures were not significantly different between the two protocols. Mean sensitivity (64 and 77 % for protocols A and B, respectively), specificity (78 and 84 %), and accuracy (74 and 83 %) tended to be higher for protocol B than for A, but no significant difference was found. CONCLUSION: Reducing the contrast material dose by 20 % did not significantly impair the enhancement of anatomical structures or the detection of metastatic cervical lymph nodes. Radiologists should therefore consider reducing the contrast material dose used in head and neck CT.
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Matthew D Gilman; Jiang Hsieh; Homer H Pien; Subba R Digumarthy; Jo-Anne O Shepard Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Steven D Weisbord; Maria K Mor; Abby L Resnick; Kathryn C Hartwig; Paul M Palevsky; Michael J Fine Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vander Poorten; Piet Dirix; Eric Verbeken; Sandra Nuyts; Robert Hermans Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Richard J Solomon; Roxana Mehran; Madhu K Natarajan; Serge Doucet; Richard E Katholi; Cezar S Staniloae; Samin K Sharma; Marino Labinaz; Joseph L Gelormini; Brendan J Barrett Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 8.237