Advertisement

Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp 2152–2158 | Cite as

Low-tube voltage 100 kVp MDCT in screening of cocaine body packing: image quality and radiation dose compared to 120 kVp MDCT

  • Joel AissaEmail author
  • Christian Rubbert
  • Johannes Boos
  • Christoph Schleich
  • Christoph Thomas
  • Patric Kröpil
  • Gerald Antoch
  • Falk Miese
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a reduced tube potential (100 kVp) for non-enhanced abdominal low-dose CT on radiation dose and image quality (IQ) in the detection of body packing.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the local research ethics committee of our clinic. From March 2012 to July 2014, 99 subjects were referred to our institute with suspected body packing. 50 CT scans were performed using a 120 kVp protocol (group A), and 49 CTs were performed using a low-dose protocol with a tube voltage of 100 kVp (group B). Subjective and objective IQ were assessed. DLP and CTDIvol were analyzed.

Results

All examinations were of diagnostic IQ. Objective IQ was not significantly different between the 120 kVp and 100 kVp protocol. Mean density of solid and liquid body packets was 210 ± 60.2 HU at 120 kVp and 250.6 ± 29.7 HU at 100 kVp. Radiation dose was significantly lower in group B as compared to group A (p < 0.05). In group A, body packs were detected in 16 (32%) of the 50 patients. In group B, packets were observed in 15 (31%) of 49 patients. Laboratory analysis detected cocaine in all smuggled body packs.

Conclusions

Low-tube voltage 100 kVp MDCT with automated tube current modulation in screening of illegal drugs leads to a diagnostic IQ and significant dose reduction compared to 120 kVp low-tube voltage protocols. Despite lower radiation dose, liquid and solid cocaine containers retain high attenuation and are easily detected.

Keywords

Body packing Cocaine CT Acute abdominal Localizer Dose reduction 

References

  1. 1.
    Gherardi R, Marc B, Alberti X, Baud F, Diamant-Berger O (1990) A cocaine body packer with normal abdominal plain radiograms. Value of drug detection in urine and contrast study of the bowel. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 11(2):154–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    June R, Aks SE, Keys N, Wahl M (2000) Medical outcome of cocaine bodystuffers. J Emerg Med 18(2):221–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bulakci M, Kalelioglu T, Bulakci BB, Kiris A (2013) Comparison of diagnostic value of multidetector computed tomography and X-ray in the detection of body packing. Eur J Radiol. 82:1248–1254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Algra PR, Brogdon BG, Marugg RC (2007) Role of radiology in a national initiative to interdict drug smuggling: the Dutch experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(2):331–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niewiarowski S, Gogbashian A, Afaq A, Kantor R, Win Z (2010) Abdominal X-ray signs of intra-intestinal drug smuggling. J Forensic Leg Med 17(4):198–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norfolk GA (2007) The fatal case of a cocaine body-stuffer and a literature review—towards evidence based management. J Forensic Leg Med. 14(1):49–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Traub SJ, Hoffman RS, Nelson LS (2003) Body packing–the internal concealment of illicit drugs. N Engl J Med 349(26):2519–2526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taheri MS, Hassanian-Moghaddam H, Birang S, et al. (2008) Swallowed opium packets: CT diagnosis. Abdom Imaging 33(3):262–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wetli CV, Mittlemann RE (1981) The “body packer syndrome”-toxicity following ingestion of illicit drugs packaged for transportation. J Forensic Sci 26(3):492–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang RM, Li L, Feng J, et al. (2009) Heroin body packing: clearly discerning drug packets using CT. South Med J 102(5):470–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Poletti PA, Canel L, Becker CD, et al. (2012) Screening of illegal intracorporeal containers (“body packing”): is abdominal radiography sufficiently accurate? A comparative study with low-dose CT. Radiology 265(3):772–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pache G, Einhaus D, Bulla S, et al. (2012) Low-dose computed tomography for the detection of cocaine body packs: clinical evaluation and legal issues. Rofo 184(2):122–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maurer MH, Niehues SM, Schnapauff D, et al. (2011) Low-dose computed tomography to detect body-packing in an animal model. Eur J Radiol 78(2):302–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, et al. (2007) Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188(4):927–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Platon A, Jlassi H, Rutschmann OT, et al. (2009) Evaluation of a low-dose CT protocol with oral contrast for assessment of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 19(2):446–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V, et al. (2004) Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 232(1):164–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNitt-Gray MF (2002) AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 22(6):1541–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prokop M (2000) Multislice CT angiography. Eur J Radiol 36(2):86–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Båth M, Månsson LG (2007) Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 80(951):169–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tamm EP, Rong XJ, Cody DD, et al. (2011) Quality initiatives: CT radiation dose reduction: how to implement change without sacrificing diagnostic quality. Radiographics 31(7):1823–1832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. Report No. 96. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park (2008).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schulz B, Grossbach A, Gruber-Rouh T, et al. (2014) Body packers on your examination table: how helpful are plain X-ray images? A definitive low-dose CT protocol as a diagnosis tool for body packers. Clin Radiol 69(12):e525–e530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(2):305–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, et al. (2006) Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 30(1):44–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Traub SJ, Hoffman RS, Nelson LS (2003) False-positive abdominal radiography in a body packer resulting from intraabdominal calcifications. Am J Emerg Med 21(7):607–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248(1):254–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmidt S, Hugli O, Rizzo E, et al. (2008) Detection of ingested cocaine-filled packets–diagnostic value of unenhanced CT. Eur J Radiol 67(1):133–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hergan K, Kofler K, Oser W (2004) Drug smuggling by body packing: what radiologists should know about it. Eur Radiol 14(4):736–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel Aissa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Rubbert
    • 1
  • Johannes Boos
    • 1
  • Christoph Schleich
    • 1
  • Christoph Thomas
    • 1
  • Patric Kröpil
    • 1
  • Gerald Antoch
    • 1
  • Falk Miese
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical FacultyUniversity DusseldorfDusseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations