Jim Zhong1, Michael Gallagher1, Chris Hounslow1, Gareth Iball2, Tze Wah1. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. 2. Department of Medical Physics - Engineering, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the effect on the radiation dose to the patient by reducing the tube current during the placement of the ablation needles (reduced dose group) compared with the patient doses delivered when scanning at the standard fully diagnostic level (full dose group) in computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous cryoablation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 103 patients undergoing cryoablation in a tertiary cancer center. Overall, 62 patients were scanned with standard exposure parameters (full dose group) set on a 64-slice multidetector CT scanner, while 41 patients were scanned on a reduced dose protocol. Dose levels were retrieved from the hospital picture and archiving communication system including the volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol), total dose length product (DLP), length of cryoablation procedure, number of cryoablation needles and patient size. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney (rank-sum) tests were used to compare the median DLP, CTDIvol and skin dose between the two groups. RESULTS: Median total DLP for the full dose group was 6025 mGy•cm (1909-13353 mGy•cm) compared with 3391 mGy•cm (1683-6820 mGy•cm) for the reduced dose group. The reduced dose group had a 44% reduction in total DLP and 42% reduction in total CTDIvol (p < 0.001). The estimated skin doses were 384 mGy for the full dose group and 224 mGy for the reduced dose group (42% reduction) (p < 0.001). At 12-month follow-up, the technical success for the full dose (n=62) was 97% with 2 patients requiring a further cryoablation treatment for residual tumor. The technical success for the reduced dose group (n=41) was 100%. CONCLUSION: CT dose reduction technique during image-guided cryoablation treatment of renal tumors can achieve significant radiation dose reduction whilst maintaining sufficient image quality.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the effect on the radiation dose to the patient by reducing the tube current during the placement of the ablation needles (reduced dose group) compared with the patient doses delivered when scanning at the standard fully diagnostic level (full dose group) in computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous cryoablation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 103 patients undergoing cryoablation in a tertiary cancer center. Overall, 62 patients were scanned with standard exposure parameters (full dose group) set on a 64-slice multidetector CT scanner, while 41 patients were scanned on a reduced dose protocol. Dose levels were retrieved from the hospital picture and archiving communication system including the volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol), total dose length product (DLP), length of cryoablation procedure, number of cryoablation needles and patient size. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney (rank-sum) tests were used to compare the median DLP, CTDIvol and skin dose between the two groups. RESULTS: Median total DLP for the full dose group was 6025 mGy•cm (1909-13353 mGy•cm) compared with 3391 mGy•cm (1683-6820 mGy•cm) for the reduced dose group. The reduced dose group had a 44% reduction in total DLP and 42% reduction in total CTDIvol (p < 0.001). The estimated skin doses were 384 mGy for the full dose group and 224 mGy for the reduced dose group (42% reduction) (p < 0.001). At 12-month follow-up, the technical success for the full dose (n=62) was 97% with 2 patients requiring a further cryoablation treatment for residual tumor. The technical success for the reduced dose group (n=41) was 100%. CONCLUSION: CT dose reduction technique during image-guided cryoablation treatment of renal tumors can achieve significant radiation dose reduction whilst maintaining sufficient image quality.
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Xin Liu; Shuai Leng; James M Kofler; Juan C Ramirez-Giraldo; Mingliang Qu; Jodie Christner; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Imaging Med Date: 2009-10
Authors: Thomas D Atwell; Rickey E Carter; Grant D Schmit; Carrie M Carr; Stephen A Boorjian; Timothy B Curry; R Houston Thompson; A Nicholas Kurup; Adam J Weisbrod; George K Chow; Bradley C Leibovich; Matthew R Callstrom; David E Patterson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Sota Oguro; Kemal Tuncali; Haytham Elhawary; Paul R Morrison; Nobuhiko Hata; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Jessica K Stewart; Christopher B Looney; Colin D Anderson-Evans; Greta I Toncheva; David R Sopko; Charles Y Kim; Terry T Yoshizumi; Rendon C Nelson Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-10
Authors: Jonathan D Eisenberg; Debra A Gervais; Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Sharjeel H Sabir; Aaron B Paul; Pari V Pandharipande Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Ronald C Chen; Jack A Clark; Robert A Cormack; Marian Loffredo; Elizabeth McMahon; Angela U Nguyen; W Warren Suh; Clare M Tempany; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2009-05-09 Impact factor: 2.362