Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 196–203 | Cite as

Radiation dose reduction through combining positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and diagnostic CT in children and young adults with lymphoma

  • Zhihua Qi
  • Erica L. Gates
  • Maureen M. O’Brien
  • Andrew T. TroutEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Both [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F–FDG PET/CT) and diagnostic CT are at times required for lymphoma staging. This means some body segments are exposed twice to X-rays for generation of CT data (diagnostic CT + localization CT).

Objective

To describe a combined PET/diagnostic CT approach that modulates CT tube current along the z-axis, providing diagnostic CT of some body segments and localization CT of the remaining body segments, thereby reducing patient radiation dose.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively compared total patient radiation dose between combined PET/diagnostic CT and separately acquired PET/CT and diagnostic CT exams. When available, we calculated effective doses for both approaches in the same patient; otherwise, we used data from patients of similar size. To confirm image quality, we compared image noise (Hounsfield unit [HU] standard deviation) as measured in the liver on both combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT images. We used t-tests for dose comparisons and two one-sided tests for image-quality equivalence testing.

Results

Mean total effective dose for the CT component of the combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT exams were 6.20±2.69 and 8.17±2.61 mSv, respectively (P<0.0001). Average dose savings with the combined approach was 24.8±17.8% (2.60±2.51 mSv [range: 0.32–4.72 mSv]) of total CT effective dose. Image noise was not statistically significantly different between approaches (12.2±1.8 HU vs. 11.7±1.5 HU for the combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT images, respectively).

Conclusion

A combined PET/diagnostic CT approach as described offers dose savings at similar image quality for children and young adults with lymphoma who have indications for both PET and diagnostic CT examinations.

Keywords

Adolescents Children Dose reduction Computed tomography Lymphoma Positron emission tomography Staging Young adults 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

A.T. Trout receives royalties from Elsevier for a nuclear medicine text. Z. Qi, E.L. Gates and M.M. O’Brien have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Barrington SF, Kirkwood AA, Franceschetto A et al (2016) PET-CT for staging and early response: results from the response-adapted therapy in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma study. Blood 127:1531–1538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF et al (2014) Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 32:3059–3068CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jimenez Londono GA, Garcia Vicente AM, Sanchez Perez V et al (2014) (1)(8)F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced CT in the standard surveillance of high risk colorectal cancer patients. Eur J Radiol 83:2224–2230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chalaye J, Luciani A, Enache C et al (2014) Clinical impact of contrast-enhanced computed tomography combined with low-dose (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography on routine lymphoma patient management. Leuk Lymphoma 55:2887–2892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    la Fougere C, Pfluger T, Schneider V et al (2008) Restaging of patients with lymphoma. Comparison of low dose CT (20 mAs) with contrast enhanced diagnostic CT in combined [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Nuklearmedizin 47:37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morimoto T, Tateishi U, Maeda T et al (2008) Nodal status of malignant lymphoma in pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways: comparison of integrated PET/CT with or without contrast enhancement. Eur J Radiol 67:508–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinilla I, Gomez-Leon N, Del Campo-Del Val L et al (2011) Diagnostic value of CT, PET and combined PET/CT performed with low-dose unenhanced CT and full-dose enhanced CT in the initial staging of lymphoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 55:567–575Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rodriguez-Vigil B, Gomez-Leon N, Pinilla I et al (2006) PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med 47:1643–1648PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alessio AM, Kinahan PE (2017) CT protocol selection in PET-CT imaging. Image Wisely. http://www.imagewisely.org/imaging-modalities/nuclear-medicine/articles/ct-protocol-selection. Accessed 23 Aug 2017
  10. 10.
    Alessio AM, Phillips GS (2010) A pediatric CT dose and risk estimator. Pediatr Radiol 40:1816–1821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR (2008) Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. Radiology 248:995–1003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCollough C, Cody D, Edyvean S et al (2008) The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT: report of AAPM task group 23. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoneyama T, Tateishi U, Endo I et al (2014) Staging accuracy of pancreatic cancer: comparison between non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT. Eur J Radiol 83:1734–1739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elstrom RL, Leonard JP, Coleman M et al (2008) Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma. Ann Oncol 19:1770–1773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sabate-Llobera A, Cortes-Romera M, Mercadal S et al (2016) Low-dose PET/CT and full-dose contrast-enhanced CT at the initial staging of localized diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. Clin Med Insights Blood Disord 9:29–32PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C et al (2004) Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging -- do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology 232:823–829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simpson WL Jr, Lee KM, Sosa N et al (2016) Lymph nodes can accurately be measured on PET-CT for lymphoma staging/restaging without a concomitant contrast enhanced CT scan. Leuk Lymphoma 57:1083–1093Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Hamersvelt HP, Kwee TC, Fijnheer R et al (2014) Can full-dose contrast-enhanced CT be omitted from an FDG-PET/CT staging examination in newly diagnosed FDG-avid lymphoma? J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:620–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fabritius G, Brix G, Nekolla E et al (2016) Cumulative radiation exposure from imaging procedures and associated lifetime cancer risk for patients with lymphoma. Sci Rep 6:35181CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nievelstein RA, Quarles van Ufford HM, Kwee TC et al (2012) Radiation exposure and mortality risk from CT and PET imaging of patients with malignant lymphoma. Eur Radiol 22:1946–1954CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hulme KW, Rong J, Chasen B et al (2011) A CT acquisition technique to generate images at various dose levels for prospective dose reduction studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W144–W151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Massoumzadeh P, Don S, Hildebolt CF et al (2009) Validation of CT dose-reduction simulation. Med Phys 36:174–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chiaravalloti A, Danieli R, Caracciolo CR et al (2014) Initial staging of Hodgkin's disease: role of contrast-enhanced 18F FDG PET/CT. Medicine 93:e50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J et al (2006) Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 47:298–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aquino SL, Kuester LB, Muse VV et al (2006) Accuracy of transmission CT and FDG-PET in the detection of small pulmonary nodules with integrated PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:692–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Juergens KU, Weckesser M, Stegger L et al (2006) Tumor staging using whole-body high-resolution 16-channel PET-CT: does additional low-dose chest CT in inspiration improve the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules? Eur Radiol 16:1131–1137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhihua Qi
    • 1
  • Erica L. Gates
    • 1
  • Maureen M. O’Brien
    • 2
  • Andrew T. Trout
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Division of Oncology, Cancer and Blood Disease InstituteCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations