Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: analysis of the effect of various concentrations of contrast material

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Radiation Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two contrast materials with moderate and high iodine concentrations for the depiction of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Materials and methods

A series of 107 patients with histologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma underwent helical computed tomography. A fixed dose of 100 ml of iopamidol 300 (mg I/ml) was administered to 50 patients (group A) and iopamidol 370 (mg I/ml) to 57 patients (group B) at the same injection rate (3 ml/s). Unenhanced helical scans and contrast-enhanced scans for three phases (30, 70, and 300 s after starting the infusion of contrast material) were obtained. We evaluated enhancement of the aorta, portal vein, hepatic parenchyma, pancreatic parenchyma, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma during each phase.

Results

During all phases, both aortic and pancreatic enhancement were significantly greater in group B than in group A (P < 0.01). Enhancement of the portal vein and hepatic parenchyma was significantly greater at 70 and 300 s in group B than in group A (both P < 0.01). Tumor-to-pancreas contrast was significantly greater in group B than in group A at both 30 s (P < 0.01) and 70 s (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Administration of contrast material with a high iodine concentration is more effective for depicting pancreatic adenocarcinomas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bramhall SR, Allum WH, Jones AG, Allwood A, Cummins C, Neoptolemos JP. Treatment and survival in 13 560 patients with pancreatic cancer, and incidence of the disease, in the West Midlands: an epidemiological study. Br J Surg 1995;82:111–115.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Niederhuber JE, Brennan MF, Menck HR. The National Cancer Data Base report on pancreatic cancer. Cancer 1995;76:1671–1677.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sener SF, Fremgen A, Menck HR, Winchester DP. Pancreatic cancer: a report of treatment and survival trends for 100 313 patients diagnosed from 1985–1995, using the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg 1999;189:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Berland LL. Slip-ring and conventional dynamic hepatic CT: contrast material and timing considerations. Radiology 1995;195:1–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson PT, Fishman EK. IV contrast selection for MDCT: current thoughts and practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:406–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nishiharu T, Yamashita Y, Abe Y, Mitsuzaki K, Tsuchigame T, Nakayama Y, et al. Local extension of pancreatic carcinoma: assessment with thin-section helical CT versus with breath-hold fast MR imaging-ROC analysis. Radiology 1999;212:445–452.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. McNulty N, Francis IR, Platt JF, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, Gebremariam A. Multi-detector row helical CT of the pancreas: effect of contrast-enhanced multiphasic imaging on enhancement of the pancreas, peripancreatic vasculature, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radiology 2001;220:97–102.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mcgiblw AJ. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: designing the examination to evaluate the clinical questions. Radiology 1992;183:297–303.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bonaldi VM, Bret PM, Atri M, Garcia P, Reinhold C. A comparison of two injection protocols using helical and dynamic acquisitions in CT examinations of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:49–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tubin ME, Tessler FN, Cheng SL, Peters TL, McGovern PC. Effect of injection rate of contrast medium on pancreatic and hepatic helical CT. Radiology 1999;210:97–101.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, Okada A, Hori M, Narumi Y, et al. Pancreatic CT imaging: effects of different injection rates and doses of contrast material. Radiology 1999;212:219–225.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA, Fidler JL, Burgart LJ, Koyama T, et al. Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2003;229:81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shinagawa M, Uchida M, Ishibashi M, Nishimura H, Hayabuchi N. Assessment of pancreatic CT enhancement using a high concentration of contrast material. Radiat Med 2003;21:74–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fenchel S, Fleiter TR, Aschoff AJ, van Gessel R, Brambs H-J, Merkle EM. Effect of iodine concentration of contrast media on contrast enhancement in multislice CT of the pancreas. Br J Radiol 2004;77:821–830.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schoellnast H, Brader P, Oberdabernig B, Pisail B, Deutschmann HA, Fritz GA, et al. High-concentration contrast media in multiphasic abdominal multidetector-row computed tomography: effect of increased iodine flow rate on parenchymal and vascular enhancement. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005;29:582–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ichikawa T, Haradome H, Hachiya J, Nitatori T, Ohtomo K, Kinoshita T, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: preoperative assessment with helical CT versus dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1997;202:655–662.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Blumke DA, Cameron JL, Hruban RH, Pitt HA, Siegelman SS, Soyer P, et al. Potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: spiral CT assessment with surgical and pathological correlation. Radiology 1995;107:381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Diehl SJ, Lehmann KJ, Sadick M, Lachmann R, Georgi M. Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology 1998;206:373–378.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Valls C, Andia E, Sanchez A, Febregat J, Pozuelo O, Quintero JC, et al. Dual-phase helical CT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: assessment of resectability before surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:821–826.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bae KT, Heiken JP, Brink JA. Aortic and hepatic peak enhancement at CT: effect of contrast medium injection rate-pharmacokinetic analysis and experimental porcine model. Radiology 1998;206:455–464.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Awai K, Hatcho A, Nakayama Y, Kusunoki S, Liu D, Hatemura M, et al. Simulation of aortic peak enhancement on MDCT using a contrast material flow phantom: feasible study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:379–385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanninen EL, Vogl TJ, Felfe R, Pegios W, Balzer J, Clauss W, et al. Detection of focal liver lesions at biphasic spiral CT: randomized double-blind study of the effect of iodine concentration in contrast materials. Radiology 2000;216:403–409.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yagyu Y, Awai K, Inoue M, Watai R, Sano T, Hasegawa H, et al. MDCT of hypovascular hepatocellular carcinomas: a prospective study using contrast materials with different iodine concentrations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1535–1540.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heiken JP, Brink JA, McClennan BL, Sagel SS, Crowe TM, Gaines MV. Dynamic incremental CT: effect of volume and concentration of contrast material and patient weight on hepatic enhancement. Radiology 1995;195:353–357.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Freeny PC, Gardner JC, voningersleben G, Heyano S, Nghiem HV, Winter TC. Hepatic helical CT: effect of reduction of iodine dose of intravenous contrast material on hepatic contrast enhancement. Radiology 1995;197:89–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Yamashita Y, Komohara Y, Takahashi M, Uchida M, Hayabuchi N, Shimizu T, et al. Abdominal helical CT: evaluation of optimal doses of intravenous contrast material-a prospective randomized study. Radiology 2000;216:718–723.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeman RK, Davros WJ, Bergman P, Weltman DI, Silverman PM, Cooper C, et al. Three dimensional models of the abdominal vasculature based on helical CT: usefulness in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:1425–1429.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan

    Yoshihiko Fukukura, Hiroyuki Hamada, Takuro Kamiyama, Tomohide Yoneyama, Koji Takumi & Masayuki Nakajo

Authors
  1. Yoshihiko Fukukura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroyuki Hamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takuro Kamiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tomohide Yoneyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Koji Takumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masayuki Nakajo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshihiko Fukukura.

About this article

Cite this article

Fukukura, Y., Hamada, H., Kamiyama, T. et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: analysis of the effect of various concentrations of contrast material. Radiat Med 26, 355–361 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-008-0240-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-008-0240-0

Key words

Search

Navigation