Cargando…

Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation dose between contrast-enhanced CT (ECT) alone, and combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT (UE + ECT) for the assessment of adnexal mass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jung, Sung Il, Park, Hee Sun, Kim, Young Jun, Jeon, Hae Jeong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24497795
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.1.72
_version_ 1782301904446947328
author Jung, Sung Il
Park, Hee Sun
Kim, Young Jun
Jeon, Hae Jeong
author_facet Jung, Sung Il
Park, Hee Sun
Kim, Young Jun
Jeon, Hae Jeong
author_sort Jung, Sung Il
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation dose between contrast-enhanced CT (ECT) alone, and combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT (UE + ECT) for the assessment of adnexal mass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. A total of 146 consecutive patients (mean age, 41.1 years) who underwent preoperative unenhanced and contrast-enhanced multidetector CT of the pelvis and had adnexal masses found at surgery were included. Two readers independently evaluated the likelihood of adnexal malignancy on a 5-point scale on two different imaging datasets (ECT alone and UE + ECT). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate diagnostic performance. Radiation dose to patients was calculated by the volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) and the dose length products (DLP) on each dataset. RESULTS: Of the total 178 adnexal masses, 133 masses were benign and 45 masses were malignant. For both readers, there is no significant difference of AUC values between ECT alone and UE + ECT for the detection of adnexal malignancy (reader 1, 0.93 vs. 0.95; reader 2, 0.92 vs. 0.91) (p > 0.05). The mean CTDI(vol) (12.6 ± 2.2 mGy) and DLP (641.2 ± 137.2 mGy) of ECT alone was significantly lower than the mean CTDI(vol) (21.5 ± 2.7 mGy) and DLP (923.6 ± 158.8 mGy) of UE + ECT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The use of unenhanced CT scan in addition to contrast-enhanced CT scan does not improve the detection of adnexal malignancy, but increases radiation exposure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3909865
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher The Korean Society of Radiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39098652014-02-04 Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary? Jung, Sung Il Park, Hee Sun Kim, Young Jun Jeon, Hae Jeong Korean J Radiol Genitourinary Imaging OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation dose between contrast-enhanced CT (ECT) alone, and combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT (UE + ECT) for the assessment of adnexal mass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. A total of 146 consecutive patients (mean age, 41.1 years) who underwent preoperative unenhanced and contrast-enhanced multidetector CT of the pelvis and had adnexal masses found at surgery were included. Two readers independently evaluated the likelihood of adnexal malignancy on a 5-point scale on two different imaging datasets (ECT alone and UE + ECT). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate diagnostic performance. Radiation dose to patients was calculated by the volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) and the dose length products (DLP) on each dataset. RESULTS: Of the total 178 adnexal masses, 133 masses were benign and 45 masses were malignant. For both readers, there is no significant difference of AUC values between ECT alone and UE + ECT for the detection of adnexal malignancy (reader 1, 0.93 vs. 0.95; reader 2, 0.92 vs. 0.91) (p > 0.05). The mean CTDI(vol) (12.6 ± 2.2 mGy) and DLP (641.2 ± 137.2 mGy) of ECT alone was significantly lower than the mean CTDI(vol) (21.5 ± 2.7 mGy) and DLP (923.6 ± 158.8 mGy) of UE + ECT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The use of unenhanced CT scan in addition to contrast-enhanced CT scan does not improve the detection of adnexal malignancy, but increases radiation exposure. The Korean Society of Radiology 2014 2014-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3909865/ /pubmed/24497795 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.1.72 Text en Copyright © 2014 The Korean Society of Radiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Genitourinary Imaging
Jung, Sung Il
Park, Hee Sun
Kim, Young Jun
Jeon, Hae Jeong
Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary?
title Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary?
title_full Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary?
title_fullStr Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary?
title_full_unstemmed Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary?
title_short Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Adnexal Mass: Is Unenhanced CT Scan Necessary?
title_sort multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of adnexal mass: is unenhanced ct scan necessary?
topic Genitourinary Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24497795
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.1.72
work_keys_str_mv AT jungsungil multidetectorcomputedtomographyfortheassessmentofadnexalmassisunenhancedctscannecessary
AT parkheesun multidetectorcomputedtomographyfortheassessmentofadnexalmassisunenhancedctscannecessary
AT kimyoungjun multidetectorcomputedtomographyfortheassessmentofadnexalmassisunenhancedctscannecessary
AT jeonhaejeong multidetectorcomputedtomographyfortheassessmentofadnexalmassisunenhancedctscannecessary