Pancreatic Cancer Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Pancreatic Cancer, including details on symptoms, causes, treatment, information. | ||||||||
|
Pancreas: patient body weight tailored contrast material injection protocol versus fixed dose protocol at dynamic CT.Yanaga Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, Nakaura T, Tamura Y, Hatemura M, Yamashita Y Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Kumamoto, Japan. PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the effect of a protocol with a fixed contrast material injection dose and one with a dose tailored to patient body weight on pancreatic enhancement at dynamic computed tomography (CT) of the pancreas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and patients gave informed consent. Seventy-eight patients suspected of having pancreatic tumor were randomly assigned to one of two protocols (39 patients in each protocol). In protocol 1, a fixed contrast material dose (120 mL of iohexol 300) was delivered at an injection rate of 4.0 mL/sec; in protocol 2, a dose tailored to the patient's body weight (2.0 mL/kg) was injected over the course of 30 seconds. Scans were started 25, 45 (pancreatic parenchymal phase [PPP]), and 70 (portal venous phase [PVP]) seconds after the initiation of contrast material injection. Pancreatic enhancement during the PPP and hepatic enhancement during the PVP were compared by using the Student t test in patients whose body weight was less than 60 kg (group A) or 60 kg or greater (group B). A radiologist who was blinded to the injection protocol used measured the CT number of each organ. RESULTS: With protocol 1, mean pancreatic enhancement during the PPP was 94.1 HU in group A and 76.1 HU in group B; the difference was statistically significant (P = .02). With protocol 2, mean pancreatic enhancement was 89.5 HU in group A and 84.7 HU in group B; there was no significant difference (P = .45). Mean hepatic enhancement with protocol 1 during the PVP was 59.6 HU in group A and 48.5 HU in group B (P < .01); with protocol 2, it was 55.4 HU in group A and 58.3 HU in group B. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .34). CONCLUSION: The dose protocol tailored to the patient's body weight yielded satisfactory pancreatic and hepatic enhancement irrespective of patient weight. Published 17 October 2007 in Radiology, 245(2): 475-82.
© 2004-2008 Pancreatic Cancer Research Today. All Rights Reserved. |
| ||||||
