2076 SPECIFIC ORGAN DOSES UTILIZING A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR IMAGING NEPHROLITHIASIS: DIGITAL TOMOSYNTHESIS (2013)

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Basic Research (I)1 Apr 20132076 SPECIFIC ORGAN DOSES UTILIZING A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR IMAGING NEPHROLITHIASIS: DIGITAL TOMOSYNTHESIS Andreas Neisius, Gaston M. Astroza, Nicholas J. Kuntz, Agnes J. Wang, Giao Nguyen, Chu Wang, Natalie Januzis, Amy M. Neville, Greta Toncheva, Ramy Youssef, Muhammad W. Iqbal, Michael N. Ferrandino, Terry T. Yoshizumi, Glenn M. Preminger, and Michael E. Lipkin Andreas NeisiusAndreas Neisius Durham, NC More articles by this author , Gaston M. AstrozaGaston M. Astroza Durham, NC More articles by this author , Nicholas J. KuntzNicholas J. Kuntz Durham, NC More articles by this author , Agnes J. WangAgnes J. Wang Durham, NC More articles by this author , Giao NguyenGiao Nguyen Durham, NC More articles by this author , Chu WangChu Wang Durham, NC More articles by this author , Natalie JanuzisNatalie Januzis Durham, NC More articles by this author , Amy M. NevilleAmy M. Neville Durham, NC More articles by this author , Greta TonchevaGreta Toncheva Durham, NC More articles by this author , Ramy YoussefRamy Youssef Durham, NC More articles by this author , Muhammad W. IqbalMuhammad W. Iqbal Durham, NC More articles by this author , Michael N. FerrandinoMichael N. Ferrandino Durham, NC More articles by this author , Terry T. YoshizumiTerry T. Yoshizumi Durham, NC More articles by this author , Glenn M. PremingerGlenn M. Preminger Durham, NC More articles by this author , and Michael E. LipkinMichael E. Lipkin Durham, NC More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.2495AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Digital tomosynthesis (DT) is a novel imaging technique for the evaluation of patients of with nephrolithiasis. It consists of a plain abdominal radiograph (KUB) and one tomographic sweep. Software is used to recreate a series of coronal images from the tomographic sweep. We determined organ specific dose and effective dose (ED) for DT and compared it to our institutional “low dose” non contrast computed tomography (NCCT). METHODS A validated anthropomorphic male phantom was placed supine on a GE Definium 8000 CT scanner. High sensitivity metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFET) dosimeters were placed at 20 organ locations and used to measure organ doses (OD). A routine DT study was performed consisting of two KUB (scout) images and one tomographic sweep in a 60 degree arc over the phantom. OD were determined as the sum of the doses for the study. Equivalent doses were calculated by multiplying OD and the appropriate tissue weighting factor. ED was calculated by the summation of the equivalent doses. OD and ED were determined in a similar fashion for a renal stone protocol NCCT and the doses were compared. RESULTS Specific organ doses for DT (2 scouts and 1 tomographic sweep) and NCCT are shown in the table. The ED for NCCT is 3.04 (±0.34) mSv. The calculated ED for digital tomosynthesis is 0.54 (±0.07) mSv (2 scouts at 0.10mSv and 0.08mSv + 1 sweep at 0.36mSv), p=0.0002. CONCLUSIONS Digital tomosynthesis exposes patients to substantially less radiation than NCCT. This is particularly true for radiation sensitive organs. Further studies are needed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of DT as compared to NCCT. However, its low overall radiation dose make it an ideal study for the follow up of the recurrent stone former in the office setting. Table. Exemplary organ doses (OD) from NCCT (stone protocol) compared to DT Organs NCCT (+/− SD) Digital tomosynthesis (+/− SD) p value Skin entrance 7.23 (+/−0.51) mGy 9.69 (+/−0.43) mGy 0.0031 Lungs 3.05 (+/−1.26) mGy 6.40 (+/−0.61) mGy 0.0143 Red bone marrow 3.2 (+/−0.1) mGy 0.81 (+/−0.15) mGy < 0.0001 Testes 5.17 (+/−3.73) mGy 0.12 (+/−0.21) mGy 0.0793 Liver 4.28 (+/−0.24) mGy 4.26 (+/−4.07) mGy 0.9960 Kidney 5.18 (+/−0.47) mGy 2.10 (+/−1.16) mGy 0.0130 © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e852 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Andreas Neisius Durham, NC More articles by this author Gaston M. Astroza Durham, NC More articles by this author Nicholas J. Kuntz Durham, NC More articles by this author Agnes J. Wang Durham, NC More articles by this author Giao Nguyen Durham, NC More articles by this author Chu Wang Durham, NC More articles by this author Natalie Januzis Durham, NC More articles by this author Amy M. Neville Durham, NC More articles by this author Greta Toncheva Durham, NC More articles by this author Ramy Youssef Durham, NC More articles by this author Muhammad W. Iqbal Durham, NC More articles by this author Michael N. Ferrandino Durham, NC More articles by this author Terry T. Yoshizumi Durham, NC More articles by this author Glenn M. Preminger Durham, NC More articles by this author Michael E. Lipkin Durham, NC More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...