Spatial resolution and radiation dose of a 64-MDCT scanner compared with published CT urography protocols

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 192, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 941-948

  Vrtiska, Terri J ^a   Hartman, Robert P ^a   Kofler, James M ^a   Bruesewitz, Michael R ^a   King, Bernard F ^a   McCollough, Cynthia H ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Adults; CT; Effective dose; Radiation dose; Technology assessment; Ureter; Urinary CT

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSIMETRY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OPTICAL RESOLUTION; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGIST; URETER DISEASE; UROGRAPHY;

HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED; URETER; UROGRAPHY;

EID: 63849281602     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2679     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Joffe SA, Servaes S, Okon S, Horowitz M. Multi-detector row CT urography in the evaluation of hematuria. RadioGraphics 2003; 23:1441-1455; discussion 1455-1456
2. O'Malley ME, Hahn PF, Yoder IC, Gazelle GS, McGovern FJ, Mueller PR. Comparison of excretory phase, helical computed tomography with intravenous urography in patients with painless haematuria. Clin Radiol 2003; 58:294-300
3. McTavish JD, Jinzaki M, Zou KH, Nawfel RD. Silverman SG. Multi-detector row CT urography: comparison of strategies for depicting the normal urinary collecting system. Radiology 2002; 225:783-790
4. McNicholas MM, Raptopoulos VD, Schwartz RK, et al. Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. AJR 1998; 170:1261-1267
5. Noroozian M, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Cowan NC, Ellis JH. Multislice CT urography: state of the art. Br J Radiol 2004; 77[spec no. 1]:S74-S86
6. Heneghan JP, Kim DH, Leder RA, DeLong D, Nelson RC. Compression CT urography: a comparison with IVU in the opacification of the collecting system and ureters. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001; 25:343-347
7. Bosniak MA. The small (less than or equal to 3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis, and controversies. Radiology 1991; 179:307-317
8. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995; 194:789-794
9. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR 1996; 166:97-101
10. Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, et al. Detection of renal masses: sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/linear tomography, US, and CT. Radiology 1988; 169:363-365
11. Perlman ES, Rosenfield AT, Wexler JS, Glickman MG. CT urography in the evaluation of urinary tract disease. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996; 20:620-626
12. Smith RC, Levine J, Dalrymple NC, Barish M, Rosenfield AT. Acute flank pain: a modern approach to diagnosis and management. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1999; 20:108-135
13. Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N, Raslan A, Van-dendris M, Bellemans M. Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. AJR 1999; 172:1491-1494
14. Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N. Helical CT without contrast in the radiological investigation of renal colic. JBR-BTR 2000; 83:260-263
15. Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox LA, Heller H, Lough-lin KR. Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol 1997; 157:2071-2073
16. Niall O, Russell J, MacGregor R, Duncan H, Mul-lins J. A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. J Urol 1999; 161:534-537
17. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, et al. The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol 1998; 159:735-740
18. Khadra MH, Pickard RS, Charlton M, Powell PH, Neal DE. A prospective analysis of 1,930 patients with hematuria to evaluate current diagnostic practice. J Urol 2000; 163:524-527
19. Kawashima A, Vrtiska TJ, LeRoy AJ, Hartman RP, McCollough CH, King BF Jr. CT urography. RadioGraphics 2004; 24[suppl 1]:S35-S54; discussion S55-S38
20. Chow LC, Sommer FG. Multidetector CT urography with abdominal compression and three-dimensional reconstruction. AJR 2001; 177:849-855
21. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, et al. Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology 2002; 222:353-360
22. Caoili EM. Imaging of the urinary tract using multidetector computed tomography urography. Semin Urol Oncol 2002; 20:174-179
23. Caoili EM, Inampudi P, Cohan RH, Ellis JH. Optimization of multi-detector row CT urography: effect of compression, saline administration, and prolongation of acquisition delay. Radiology 2005; 235:116-123
24. Sanyal R, Deshmukh A, Singh Sheorain V, Taori K. CT urography: a comparison of strategies for upper urinary tract opacification. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:1262-1266
25. Kemper J, Regier M, Stork A, Adam G, Nolte-Ernsting C. Improved visualization of the urinary tract in multidetector CT urography (MDCTU): analysis of individual acquisition delay and opacification using furosemide and low-dose test images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30:751-757
26. Silverman SG, Akbar SA, Mortelé KJ, Tuncali K, Bhagwat JG, Seifter JL. Multi-detector row CT urography of normal urinary collecting system: furosemide versus saline as adjunct to contrast medium. Radiology 2006; 240:749-755
27. Huang J, Kim YH, Shankar S, Tyagi G, Baker SP. Multidetector CT urography: comparison of two different scanning protocols for improved visualization of the urinary tract. J Comput Assist To-mogr 2006; 30:33-36
28. Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Ulzheimer S, Bruder H, Primak AN, McCollough CH. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner with z-flying focal spot. Med Phys 2005; 32:2536-2547
29. Flohr TG, Schaller S, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H, Ohnesorge BM, Schoepf UJ. Multi-detector row CT systems and image-reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2005; 235:756-773
30. Zelenko N, Coll D, Rosenfeld AT, Smith RC. Normal ureter size on unenhanced helical CT. AJR 2004; 182:1039-1041
31. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Normalised organ doses for x-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. London, UK: Health Protection Agency, 1991: National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)-SR250
32. Keat N. CTDosimetry.xls. ImPACT Group Website. www.impactscan.org. Accessed September 2008
33. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991; 21:1-201
34. McCollough CH. Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? Radiology 2005; 237:755-756
35. Conference of Radiation Dose Control Program Directors (CRCPD). Nationwide evaluation of X-Ray Trends (NEXT) tabulation and graphical summary of 1995 abdomen and lumbosacral spine survey. Frankfort, KY: CRCPD, 2000: publication no. 00-2
36. Wang JH, Shen SH, Huang SS, Chang CY. Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urography in the evaluation of acute renal colic. J Chin Med Assoc 2008; 71:30-36
37. Gray Sears CL, Ward JF, Sears ST, Puckett MF, Kane CJ, Amling CL. Prospective comparison of computerized tomography and excretory urography in the initial evaluation of asymptomatic microhematuria. J Urol 2002; 168:2457-2460
38. Liu W, Mortelé KJ, Silverman SG. Incidental extraurinary findings at MDCT urography in patients with hematuria: prevalence and impact on imaging costs. AJR 2005; 185:1051-1056
39. Nolte-Ernsting C, Cowan N. Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: many roads lead to Rome. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:2670-2686
40. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG, Nolte-Ernsting CC, Takahashi S, Cohan RH; CT Urography Working Group of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). CT urography: definition, indications and techniques-a guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:4-17