AJR Custom publishing of AJR articles and ARRS Cat. Course
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Erturk, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Erturk, S. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.06.5003
AJR 2006; 186:266-267
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Value of the Single-Phase Technique in MDCT Assessment of Pancreatic Tumors

Sukru Mehmet Erturk

Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA 02120

I read with great interest the article by Imbriaco et al. [1] in the April 2005 issue of the AJR in which they attempted to determine the diagnostic value of single-phase MDCT in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. In that study, the authors performed contrast-enhanced CT of the pancreas with a scanning delay of 60 sec after the IV injection of 150 mL of nonionic contrast material with an iodine content of 370 mg I/mL delivered at 3 mL/sec in all patients.

Interestingly, in the discussion, the authors mention that using the formula previously suggested by Tublin et al. [2], the peak enhancement of the pancreas was reached at 60 sec in their study. In my understanding, this is a perfect case of circular reasoning, because neither in the material and methods section nor in the results section could I find any information about the methodology or statistical analysis the authors used to determine the timing of peak enhancement of the pancreas. Such a purpose would have required serial measurements of pancreatic parenchyma to obtain time-density curves that can be used to determine the peak enhancement time. Because the authors started the CT acquisition 60 sec after the IV injection, it should have been impossible for them to determine the time of peak enhancement of the pancreas; it might have occurred earlier in some patients and later in some others.

Furthermore, in their discussion, the authors also claim that, in agreement with previous data by Kim et al. [3], they found the contrast material volume and injection rate to be directly related to pancreatic parenchymal enhancement. Nevertheless, in the material and methods section, there is no information about any effort to correlate the contrast material volume or injection rate with pancreatic parenchymal enhancement. Nor does the results section include any outcome related to this issue. Moreover, if the injection rate was 3 mL/sec in all patients, as stated in the material and methods section, by definition it was impossible to correlate the injection rate with pancreatic parenchymal enhancement.

In conclusion, the 60-sec delay used in the study of Imbriaco et al. [1] is an empirical choice of the authors that is not directly related to the outcomes of the study. Likewise, the design of the study does not allow the authors to claim that pancreatic enhancement correlates with the injection rate of the contrast material. These issues related to parenchymal peak enhancement still need to be investigated.


References
Top
References
 

  1. Imbriaco M, Megibow AJ, Ragozzino A, et al. Value of the single-phase technique in MDCT assessment of pancreatic tumors. AJR 2005; 184:1111 -1117[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Tublin 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[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, et al. Pancreatic CT imaging: effects of different injection rates and doses of contrast material. Radiology 1999;212 : 219-225[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Erturk, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Erturk, S. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS