HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2452061749v1 245/2/475    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yanaga, Y. Articles by Yamashita, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yanaga, Y. Articles by Yamashita, Y.

Pancreas: Patient Body Weight–tailored Contrast Material Injection Protocol versus Fixed Dose Protocol at Dynamic CT¹

¹ From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Kumamoto 860-8556, Japan (Y. Yanaga, K.A., Y.N., T.N., Y. Yamashita); and Department of Radiology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan (Y.T., M.H.). Received October 10, 2006; revision requested December 7; revision received February 20, 2007; accepted March 20; final version accepted May 7. Address correspondence to Y. Yanaga.

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.

© RSNA, 2007