Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

CT-urography: a nationwide survey by the Italian Board of Urogenital Radiology

  • Abdominal Radiology
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computed tomography–urography is currently the imaging modality of choice for the assessment of the whole urinary tract, giving the possibility to detect and characterize benign and malignant conditions. In particular, computed tomography–urography takes advantage from an improved visualization of the urinary collecting system due to acquisition of delayed scan obtained after excretion of intravenous contrast medium from the kidneys. Nevertheless, the remaining scans are of great help for identification, characterization, and staging of urological tumors. Considering the high number of diseases, urinary segment potentially involved and patients’ features, scanning protocols of computed tomography–urography largely vary from one clinical case to another as well as selection and previous preparation of the patient. According to the supramentioned considerations, radiation exposure is also of particular concern. Italian radiologists were asked to express their opinions about computed tomography–urography performance and about its role in their daily practice through an online survey. This paper collects and summarizes the results.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nolte-Ernsting C, Cowan N (2006) Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: many roads lead to Rome. Eur Radiol 16:2670–2686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ (2001) Intravenous urography: technique and interpretation. Radiographics 21(4):799–821

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shaish H (2020) Making sense of the CT urogram. Eur Radiol 30(3):1385–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McNicholas MM, Raptopoulos VD, Schwartz RK, Sheiman RG, Zormpala A, Prassopoulos PK, Ernst RD, Pearlman JD (1998) Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. Am J Roentgenol 170(5):1261–1267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Park JJ, Park BK, Kim CK (2016) Single-phase DECT with VNCT compared with three-phase CTU in patients with haematuria. Eur Radiol 26(10):3550–3557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ascenti G, Mileto A, Gaeta M, Blandino A, Mazziotti S, Scribano E (2013) Single-phase dual-energy CT urography in the evaluation of haematuria. Clin Radiol 68(2):e87-94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Metser U, Goldstein MA, Chawla TP, Fleshner NE, Jacks LM, O’Malley ME (2012) Detection of urothelial tumors: comparison of urothelial phase with excretory phase CT urography—a prospective study. Radiology 264(1):110–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanyal R, Deshmukh A, Singh Sheorain V, Taori K (2007) CT urography: a comparison of strategies for upper urinary tract opacification. Eur Radiol 17(5):1262–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Renard-Penna R, Rocher L, Roy C, André M, Bellin MF, Boulay I, Eiss D et al (2020) French Society of Genitourinary Imaging Consensus group”. Imaging protocols for CT urography: results of a consensus conference from the French Society of Genitourinary Imaging. Eur Radiol. 30(3):1387–1396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Schleipman AR, Silverman SG (2004) Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology 232(1):126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gray Sears CL, Ward JF, Sears ST, Puckett MF, Kane CJ, Amling CL (2002) Prospective comparison of computerized tomography and excretory urography in the initial evaluation of asymptomatic microhematuria. J Urol 168(6):2457–2460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lang EK, Thomas R, Davis R, Myers L, Sabel A, Macchia R et al (2004) Multiphasic helical computerized tomography for the assessment of microscopic hematuria: a prospective study. J Urol 171(1):237–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Inampudi P, Ellis JH, Shah RB, Faerber GJ, Montie JE (2005) MDCT urography of upper tract urothelial neoplasms. Am J Roentgenol 184(6):1873–1881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cowan NC, Turney BW, Taylor NJ, McCarthy CL, Crew JP (2007) Multidetector computed tomography urography for diagnosing upper urinary tract urothelial tumour. BJU Int 99(6):1363–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weatherspoon K, Smolinski S, Rakita D, Valdes C, Garb J, Podsiadlo V, Waslick M, Kreychman A (2017) Intravenous vs. oral hydration administration for optimal ureteral opacification in computer tomographic urography. Abdom Radiol 42(12):2890–2897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Connor OJ, Maher MM (2010) CT urography. Am J Roentgenol 195(5):W320–W324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng K, Cassidy F, Aganovic L, Taddonio M, Vahdat N (2019) CT urography: how to optimize the technique. Abdom Radiol 44(12):3786–3799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Silverman SG, Leyendecker JR, Amis ES (2009) What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology 250:309–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen CY, Hsu JS, Jaw TS et al (2015) Split-bolus portal venous phase dual-energy CT urography: protocol design, image quality, and dose reduction. Am J Roentgenol 205(5):W492-501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG et al (2008) CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol 18(1):4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ESUR guidelines on contrast media. Version 8.1. European Society of Urogenital Radiology Web site. https://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/2019/ESUR_Guidelines_10.0_Final_Version.pdf. Accessed Feb 2022

  22. Raman SP, Horton KM, Fishman EK (2013) MDCT evaluation of ureteral tumors: advantages of 3D reconstruction and volume visualization. Am J Roentgenol 201(6):1239–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson PT, Horton KM, Fishman EK (2010) Noncontrast multidetector CT of the kidneys: utility of 2D MPR and 3D rendering to elucidate genitourinary pathology. Emerg Radiol 17(4):329–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vrtiska TJ, Hartman RP, Kofler JM, Bruesewitz MR, King BF, McCollough CH (2009) Spatial resolution and radiation dose of a 64-MDCT scanner compared with published CT urography protocols. Am J Roentgenol 192(4):941–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martingano P, Stacul F, Cavallaro MF, Cernic S, Bregant P, Cova MA (2011) 64-Slice CT urography: optimisation of radiation dose. Radiol Med 116(3):417–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Eikefjord EN, Thorsen F, Rørvik J (2007) Comparison of effective radiation doses in patients undergoing unenhanced MDCT and excretory urography for acute flank pain. Am J Roentgenol 188(4):934–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dahlman P, van der Molen AJ, Magnusson M, Magnusson A (2012) How much dose can be saved in three-phase CT urography? A combination of normal-dose corticomedullary phase with low-dose unenhanced and excretory phases. Am J Roentgenol 199(4):852–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Expert Panel on Urological Imaging, Venkatesan AM, Oto A, Allen BC, Akin O, Alexander LF, Chong J, Froemming AT, Fulgham PF, Goldfarb S, Gettle LM, Maranchie JK, Patel BN, Schieda N, Schuster DM, Turkbey IB, Lockhart ME (2020) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® recurrent lower urinary tract infections in females. J Am Coll Radiol 17(11S):S487–S496

    Google Scholar 

  29. Expert Panel on Urological Imaging, Wolfman DJ, Marko J, Nikolaidis P, Khatri G, Dogra VS, Ganeshan D, Goldfarb S, Gore JL, Gupta RT, Heilbrun ME, Lyshchik A, Purysko AS, Savage SJ, Smith AD, Wang ZJ, Wong-You-Cheong JJ, Yoo DC, Lockhart ME (2020) ACR appropriateness Criteria® hematuria. J Am Coll Radiol 17(5S):S138–S147

    Google Scholar 

  30. van der Molen AJ, Miclea RL, Geleijns J, Joemai RM (2015) A survey of radiation doses in CT urography before and after implementation of iterative reconstruction. Am J Roentgenol 205(3):572–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that they did not receive any funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Cicero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This work was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not necessary since the work is based on a voluntary participation to an online survey.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

  1. 1.

    First name, family name, affiliation (optional)

  2. 2.

    Workplace:

    • URs: 61.6% General Hospital; 19.2% University Hospital; 19.2% Private Center

    • GRs: 57.4% General Hospital; 20.4% University Hospital; 22.1% Private Center

  3. 3.

    CT-scanner employed:

    • URs: 5.5% 16-slice MDCT; 45.2% 64-slice MDCT; 28.8% 128-slice MDCT; 1.4% 256-slice MDCT; 12.3% Dual-Energy CT-scan; 6.8% other (32-slice, 4-slice, 512-slice)

    • GRs: 11.8% 16-slice MDCT; 45.1% 64-slice MDCT; 22.7% 128-slice MDCT; 6.2% 256-slice MDCT; 7.3% Dual-Energy CT-scan; 6.9% other (32-slice; 80-slice; 640-slice; 320-slice; 19 × 2slice)

  4. 4.

    Which of these options do you consider appropriate for CTU performance? (multiple choice possible)

    • URs: hematuria 91.8%; lithiasis 46.6%; inflammatory diseases 31.5%; renal lesions characterization 53.4%; urothelial malignancy staging 78.1%; urinary tract trauma 86.3%; anatomic alterations (congenital or iatrogenic) 76.7%; organ donors 20.5%; other 1.1% (clinical-radiological mismatch in renal colic; according to ESUR guidelines; post-operative complications)

    • GRs: 88.5% hematuria; 51.8% lithiasis; 40.9% inflammatory diseases; 57.1% renal lesions characterization; 71.4% urothelial malignancy staging; 81.2% urinary tract trauma; 69.3% anatomic alterations (congenital or iatrogenic); 24.3% organ donors; other (renal tuberculosis; chronic inflammation of the urinary excretory system)

  5. 5.

    Does exam preparation include oral hydration?

    • URs: yes 39.7%; no 60.3%

    • GRs: yes 35.9%; no 64.1%

  6. 6.

    In case of slightly altered serum creatinine, do you provide the patient intravenous hydration before the beginning of the exam?

    • URs: yes 69.9%; no 30.1%

    • GRs: yes 81.5%; no 18.5%

  7. 7.

    If you have positively answered to the previous question, in which way do you provide hydration to the patient? *

    • URs (52/73): 80.8% saline (500 ml/250 ml); 13.5% Fluimucil; 5.7% other (oral hydrations; according to the GFR values of the patient; administration of sodium bicarbonate)

    • GRs (292/357): 80.8% saline (500 ml/250 ml); 11.3% Fluimucil; 7.9% other (saline and Fluimucil in conjunction; oral hydration the day before the exam; administration of sodium bicarbonate; on the basis of the nephrologist’s advice; according to ESUR guidelines; according to the anamnesis and serum creatine values of the patient; according to the GFR values of the patient; use of Ringer’s acetate).

  8. 8.

    In case of no contraindications, do you administer intravenous diuretic (furosemide) to the patient for CTU performance?

    • URs: yes 26%; no 74%

    • GRs: yes 17.6%; no 82.4%

  9. 9.

    If you have positively answered to the previous question, in which dose do you administer the intravenous diuretic? *

    • URs (19/73): 78.9% 10 mg; 21.1% 20 mg

    • GRs (62/357): 82.3% 10 mg; 17.7% 20 mg

  10. 10.

    If you have positively answered to the previous questions, in which phase do you administer the intravenous diuretic? *

    • URs (19/73): 36.8% before the beginning of the exam; 63.2% after the unenhanced phase

    • GRs (62/357): 32.3% before the beginning of the exam; 67.7% after the unenhanced phase

  11. 11.

    The unenhanced phase is generally performed using:

    • URs: 60.3% a standard protocol; 39.7% a low-dose protocol

    • GRs: 63.9% a standard protocol; 36.1% a low-dose protocol

  12. 12.

    In the non-enhanced scan, do you include the whole urinary tract?

    • URs: 91.8% yes; 0% no; 8.2% it depends on the clinical suspicion

    • GRs: yes 83.8%; no 0.2%; according to the clinical suspicion 16%

  13. 13.

    For CTU:

    • URs: 19.2% a standard protocol is generally used; 80.8% number and type of phases are acquired on the basis of clinical suspicion and patient’s age

    • GRs: 17.9% a standard protocol is generally used; 82.1% number and type of phases are acquired on the basis of clinical suspicion and patient’s age

  14. 14.

    Which one of these protocols do you use?

    • URs: 41.2% single-bolus; 21.9% "split-bolus"; 26% single-bolus with urographic phase; 11% Dual-Energy protocol (single- or split-bolus)

    • GRs: 47.9% single-bolus; 18.2% "split-bolus"; 29.4% single-bolus with urographic phase; 4.5% Dual-Energy protocol (single- or split-bolus)

  15. 15.

    While performing a single-bolus CTU, which phases do you acquire under suspicion of urothelial malignancy or for hematuria assessment? *

    • URs (62/73): 72.6% unenhanced, corticomedullary, nephrographic and excretory; 27.4% unenhanced, nephrographic and excretory

    • GRs (307/357): 79.8% unenhanced, corticomedullary, nephrographic and excretory; 20.2% unenhanced, nephrographic and excretory

  16. 16.

    While performing a split-bolus CTU, which phases do you acquire under suspicion of urothelial malignancy or for hematuria assessment? *

    • URs (34/73): 41.2% unenhanced and mixed nephrographic/excretory; 38.2% unenhanced, corticomedullary and mixed nephrographic/excretory; 20.6% unenhanced and mixed corticomedullary/excretory

    • GRs (127/357): 26% unenhanced and mixed nephrographic/excretory; 49.6% unenhanced, corticomedullary and mixed nephrographic/excretory; 24.4% unenhanced and mixed corticomedullary/excretory

  17. 17.

    While performing a single-bolus CTU, which is the amount of intravenous contrast medium? *

    • URs (71/73): 2.8% a fixed amount of contrast medium, independently from patient’s features and clinical suspicion; 97.2% adjusted on the basis of patient’s weight, clinical indication or contrast medium type

    • GRs (306/357): 4.9% a fixed amount of contrast medium, independently from patient’s features and clinical suspicion; 95.1% adjusted on the basis of patient’s weight, clinical indication or contrast medium type

  18. 18.

    While performing a split-bolus CTU, in which way do you divide the whole amount of intravenous contrast medium? *

    • URs (35/73): 34.3% split in half between the two injections; 60% 2/3 during first injection, 1/3 during second injection; 5.7% other (1/3 during first injection, 2/3 during the second injection)

    • GRs (130/357): 33.1% split in half between the two injections; 52.3% 2/3 during first injection, 1/3 during second injection; 14.6% other (1/3 first injection, 2/3 s injection; 30 ml first injection, 0.5 g iodine/kg second injection; 20%fisr injection 50% second injection, 30% third injection; 40% first injection, 60% second injection; 60% first injection, 40% second injection; 20–30 ml first injection, 20–30 ml second injection; 1/5 first injection, 4/5 s injection; 50% first injection, 30% second injection, 20% third injection; on the basis of the iodine concentration of the contrast medium used).

  19. 19.

    Which timing do you use for excretory phase acquisition?

    • URs: 5 min (6.8%); 7 min (37%); 10 min (38.4%); > 10 min (17.8%)

    • GRs: 5 min (6.7%); 7 min (26.1%); 10 min (42.9%); > 10 min (24.4%)

  20. 20.

    Do you put the patient on prone position before the excretory phase acquisition?

    • URs: yes, always 23.3%; no, never 76.7%

    • GRs: yes, always 19.3%; no, never 80.7%

  21. 21.

    If you have positively answered to the previous questions, do you acquire the excretory phase in prone (a) or supine (b) decubitus?

    • URs: (a) 28.8%; (b) 71.2%

    • GRs: (a) 42.3%; (b) 57.7%

  22. 22.

    How often it is required from the patient to cough or to perform Valsalva maneuver before excretory phase acquisition? *

    • URs (73/73): 23.3% always; 20.5% often; 34.2% rarely; 21.9% never

    • GRs (356/357): 20.5% always; 27.5% often; 27.6% rarely; 24.5% never

  23. 23.

    Do you always obtain MPR reconstructions on the coronal plane for excretory phase?

    • URs: yes 83.6%; no 16.4%

    • GRs: yes 90.5%; no 9.5%

  24. 24.

    How often do you use reconstruction algorithms with specific software (MIP, VR, etc.)?

    • URs: 49.3% always; 37% often; 12.3% rarely; 1.4% never

    • GRs: 51.8% always; 33.6% often; 11.2% rarely; 3.4% never

  25. 25.

    How often do you need to repeat the excretory phase scan?

    • URs: 4.1% always; 13.7% often; 79.5% rarely; 2.7% never

    • GRs: 1.4% always; 21.3% often; 72.5% rarely; 4.8% never

  26. 26.

    How often do you obtain an excretory phase with a delay higher than 30 min?

    • URs: 0% always; 1.4% often; 64.4% rarely; 34.2% never

    • GRs: 0.6% always; 2.5% often; 65.5% rarely; 31.4% never

  27. 27.

    How often in the daily clinical practice is it achieved the whole opacification of both the ureters (when patent) along their paths at the end of the exam? *

    • URs (72/73): 25% always; 72.2% often; 2.8% rarely; 0% never

    • GRs (357/357): 16.9% always; 77.2% often; 5.6% rarely; 0.3% never

  28. 28.

    How often do you obtain thin-slice section (< 2 mm) acquisitions during the excretory phase?

    • URs: 35.6% always; 26% often; 20.5% rarely; 17.8% never

    • GRs: 34.5% always; 22.7% often; 27.5% rarely; 15.4% never

  29. 29.

    Which GFR value do you consider inappropriate for CTU performance?

    • URs: 1.4% < 60 ml/min; 19.2% < 45 ml/min; 79.5% < 30 ml/min

    • GRs: 7% < 60 ml/min; 19.9% < 45 ml/min; 73.1% < 30 ml/min

  30. 30.

    How often a CTU is deferred due to inappropriate GFR values?

    • URs: 2.7% always; 13.7% often; 80.8% rarely; 2.7% never

    • GRs: 7.3% always; 11.2% often; 80.1% rarely; 1.4% never

  31. 31.

    While performing a single-bolus CTU, which is the mean value of radiation dose delivered? *

    • URs (51/73): 7.8% < 10 mSv; 39.2% 10–20 mSv; 33.3% 20–30 mSv; 19.6% 30–40 mSv; 0% > 40 mSv

    • GRs (204/357): 12.7% < 10 mSv; 34.8% 10––20 mSv; 35.8% 20–30 mSv; 13.2% 30–40 mSv; 3.4% > 40 mSv

  32. 32.

    While performing a split-bolus CTU, which is the mean value of radiation dose delivered? *

    • URs (30/73): 50% < 10 mSv; 26.7% 10–20 mSv; 13.3% 20–30 mSv; 10% 30–40 mSv; 0% > 40 mSv

    • GRs (111/357): 27.9% < 10 mSv; 41.4% 10–20 mSv; 18.9% 20–30 mSv; 6.3% 30–40 mSv; 5.4% > 40 mSv

Not compulsory questions are marked with an asterisk (*); the number of responders is reported between brackets.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ascenti, G., Cicero, G., Bertelli, E. et al. CT-urography: a nationwide survey by the Italian Board of Urogenital Radiology. Radiol med 127, 577–588 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-022-01488-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-022-01488-3

Keywords

Navigation