OBJECTIVES: Risks associated with high cumulative effective dose (CED) from radiation are greater when imaging is performed on younger patients. Testicular cancer affects young patients and has a good prognosis. Regular imaging is standard for follow-up. This study quantifies CED from diagnostic imaging in these patients. METHODS: Radiological imaging of patients aged 18-39 years, diagnosed with testicular cancer between 2001 and 2011 in two tertiary care centres was examined. Age at diagnosis, cancer type, dose-length product (DLP), imaging type, and frequency were recorded. CED was calculated from DLP using conversion factors. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients with a mean age of 30.7 ± 5.2 years at diagnosis had 1,410 radiological investigations. Median (IQR) surveillance was 4.37 years (2.0-5.5). Median (IQR) CED was 125.1 mSv (81.3-177.5). Computed tomography accounted for 65.3 % of imaging studies and 98.3 % of CED. We found that 77.5 % (93/120) of patients received high CED (>75 mSv). Surveillance time was associated with high CED (OR 2.1, CI 1.5-2.8). CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of testicular cancer frequently receive high CED from diagnostic imaging, mainly CT. Dose management software for accurate real-time monitoring of CED and low-dose CT protocols with maintained image quality should be used by specialist centres for surveillance imaging. KEY POINTS: • CT accounted for 98.3 % of CED in patients with testicular cancer. • Median CED in patients with testicular cancer was 125.1 mSv • High CED (>75 mSv) was observed in 77.5 % (93/120) of patients. • Dose tracking and development of low-dose CT protocols are recommended.
OBJECTIVES: Risks associated with high cumulative effective dose (CED) from radiation are greater when imaging is performed on younger patients. Testicular cancer affects young patients and has a good prognosis. Regular imaging is standard for follow-up. This study quantifies CED from diagnostic imaging in these patients. METHODS: Radiological imaging of patients aged 18-39 years, diagnosed with testicular cancer between 2001 and 2011 in two tertiary care centres was examined. Age at diagnosis, cancer type, dose-length product (DLP), imaging type, and frequency were recorded. CED was calculated from DLP using conversion factors. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients with a mean age of 30.7 ± 5.2 years at diagnosis had 1,410 radiological investigations. Median (IQR) surveillance was 4.37 years (2.0-5.5). Median (IQR) CED was 125.1 mSv (81.3-177.5). Computed tomography accounted for 65.3 % of imaging studies and 98.3 % of CED. We found that 77.5 % (93/120) of patients received high CED (>75 mSv). Surveillance time was associated with high CED (OR 2.1, CI 1.5-2.8). CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of testicular cancer frequently receive high CED from diagnostic imaging, mainly CT. Dose management software for accurate real-time monitoring of CED and low-dose CT protocols with maintained image quality should be used by specialist centres for surveillance imaging. KEY POINTS: • CT accounted for 98.3 % of CED in patients with testicular cancer. • Median CED in patients with testicular cancer was 125.1 mSv • High CED (>75 mSv) was observed in 77.5 % (93/120) of patients. • Dose tracking and development of low-dose CT protocols are recommended.
Authors: Jun Wang; Tony Kang; Chesnal Arepalli; Sarah Barrett; Tim O'Connell; Luck Louis; Savvakis Nicolaou; Patrick McLaughlin Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-06
Authors: E Cardis; M Vrijheid; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; F Bermann; G Cowper; J Fix; C Hacker; B Heinmiller; M Marshall; I Thierry-Chef; D Utterback; Y-O Ahn; E Amoros; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; J Bernar; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklöf; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R R Habib; K Holan; H Hyvonen; A Kerekes; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Martuzzi; A Mastauskas; A Monnet; M Moser; M S Pearce; D B Richardson; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.841
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: R H A Verhoeven; A Gondos; M L G Janssen-Heijnen; K U Saum; D H Brewster; B Holleczek; E Crocetti; S Rosso; T Hakulinen; T Aareleid; H Brenner Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Gordon J Rustin; Graham M Mead; Sally P Stenning; Paul A Vasey; Nina Aass; Robert A Huddart; Michael P Sokal; Jonathan K Joffe; Stephen J Harland; Sarah J Kirk Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fiachra Moloney; Daniel Fama; Maria Twomey; Ruth O'Leary; Conor Houlihane; Kevin P Murphy; Siobhan B O'Neill; Owen J O'Connor; Dorothy Breen; Michael M Maher Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2016-04-28
Authors: Gamal Anton Wakileh; Christian Ruf; Axel Heidenreich; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Catharina Lisson; Vikas Prasad; Christian Bolenz; Friedemann Zengerling Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
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