Abstract
Objectives
Risks associated with high cumulative effective dose (CED) from radiation are greater when imaging is performed on younger patients. Testicular cancer affects young patients and has a good prognosis. Regular imaging is standard for follow-up. This study quantifies CED from diagnostic imaging in these patients.
Methods
Radiological imaging of patients aged 18-39 years, diagnosed with testicular cancer between 2001 and 2011 in two tertiary care centres was examined. Age at diagnosis, cancer type, dose-length product (DLP), imaging type, and frequency were recorded. CED was calculated from DLP using conversion factors. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS.
Results
In total, 120 patients with a mean age of 30.7 ± 5.2 years at diagnosis had 1,410 radiological investigations. Median (IQR) surveillance was 4.37 years (2.0–5.5). Median (IQR) CED was 125.1 mSv (81.3-177.5). Computed tomography accounted for 65.3 % of imaging studies and 98.3 % of CED. We found that 77.5 % (93/120) of patients received high CED (>75 mSv). Surveillance time was associated with high CED (OR 2.1, CI 1.5-2.8).
Conclusions
Survivors of testicular cancer frequently receive high CED from diagnostic imaging, mainly CT. Dose management software for accurate real-time monitoring of CED and low-dose CT protocols with maintained image quality should be used by specialist centres for surveillance imaging.
Key points
• CT accounted for 98.3 % of CED in patients with testicular cancer.
• Median CED in patients with testicular cancer was 125.1 mSv
• High CED (>75 mSv) was observed in 77.5 % (93/120) of patients.
• Dose tracking and development of low-dose CT protocols are recommended.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CED:
-
Cumulative effective dose
- CT:
-
Computed tomography
- ICRP:
-
International Commission on Radiological Protection
- UICC:
-
Union for International Cancer Control
- TNM:
-
Tumour nodes, metastases
- PACS:
-
Picture Archiving and Communication System
- DRLs:
-
Diagnostic reference levels
- ESMO:
-
European Society for Medical Oncology
- RPLND:
-
Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
References
Znaor A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A, Bray F (2013). International Variations and Trends in Testicular Cancer Incidence and Mortality. Eur Urol pii: S0302-2838(13)01201-3.
Verdecchia A, Francisci S, Brenner H et al (2007) Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data. Lancet Oncol 8:784–796
Schmoll H-J, Jordan K, Huddart R et al (2010) Testicular seminoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 21:v140–v146
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Version 2.2011. Testicular cancer - pure seminoma.
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Version 2.2011. Testicular cancer - non-seminoma.
NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (2009). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M et al (2007) The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res 167:3962416
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284
Coyle J, Kinsella S, McCarthy S, MacWilliams S, McLaughlin P, Eustace J, Maher MM (2012) Cumulative ionising radiation exposure in patients with end stage kidney disease: a 6-year retrospective analysis. Abdom Imaging 37:632–638
Desmond AN, O’Regan K, Curran C, McWilliams S, Fitzgerald T, Maher MM, Shanahan F (2008) Crohn’s disease: factors associated with exposure to high levels of diagnostic radiation. Gut 57:1524–1529
O’Connell OJ, McWilliams S, McGarrigle A et al (2012) Radiologic imaging in cystic fibrosis: cumulative effective dose and changing trends over 2 decades. Chest 141:1575–1583
Verhoeven RHA, Gondos A, Janssen-Heijnen MLG et al (2013) Testicular cancer in Europe and the USA: survival still rising among older patients. Ann Oncol 24:508–513
Sobin LH, Gospodariwicz M, Wittekind C (eds) (2009). TNM classification of malignant tumours. UICC International Union Against Cancer, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009; pp 249-254.
Huda W, Magill D, He W (2011) CT effective dose per dose length product using ICRP 103 weighting factors. Med Phys 38:1261–1265
The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332
Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog. Radiology 248:254–263
Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, Ziegler SI, Munzing W, Muller SP, Beyer T (2005) Radiation Exposure of Patients Undergoing Whole-Body Dual-Modality 18 F-FDG PET/CT Examinations. J Nucl Med 46:608–613
Huang B, Law MW-M, Khong P-L (2009) Whole-Body PET/CT Scanning: Estimation of Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk. Radiology 251:166–174
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247
Silva MV, Motamedinia P, Badalato GM, Hruby G, McKiernan JM (2012) Diagnostic radiation exposure risk in a contemporary cohort of male patients with germ cell tumor. J Urol 187:482–486
Rusner C, Stang A, Dieckmann KP, Friedel H (2013) Frequency of computed tomography examinations in the follow-up care of testicular cancer patients - an evaluation of patterns of care in Germany. Onkologie 36:188–192
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shapard JA, Saini S (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Radiation from “extra’ images acquired with abdominal and/or pelvic CT: effect of automatic tube current modulation. Radiology 232:409–414
Toth T, Ge Z, Daly MP (2007) The influence of patient centering on CT dose and image noise. Med Phys 34:3093–3101
Li J, Udayasankar RK, Toth et al (2007) Automatic patient centering for MCDT: effect on radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:547–552
Kaasalainen T, Palmu K, Lampinen A, Kortesniemi M (2013) Effect of vertical positioning on organ dose, image noise and contrast in mediatric chest CT—phantom study. Pediatr Radiol 43:673–684
Wang J, Kang T, Arepalli C et al (2014) Half-dose non-contrast CT in the investigation of urolithiasis: image quality improvement with third-generation integrated circuit CT detectors. Abdom Imaging, Epub
Korn A, Bender B, Spira D et al (2014) Added Value of Integrated Circuit Detector in Head CT: Objective and Subjective Image Quality in Comparison to Conventional Detector Design. Acad Radiol, Epub
Gordic S, Morsbach F, Schmidt et al (2014) Ultra low-dose chest computed tomography for pulmonary nodule detection: first performance evaluation of single energy scanning with spectral shaping. Invest Radiol 49:465–473
Gnannt R, Winklehner A, Eberli D et al (2012) Automated tube potential selection for standard chest and abdominal CT in follow-up of patients with testicular cancer: comparison with fixed tube potential. Eur Radiol 22:1937–1945
Winklehner A, Goetti R, Baumueller S et al (2011) Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography: improved dose effectiveness. Invest Radiol 46:767–773
Desais GS, Fuentes Orrego JM, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV (2013) Performance of iterative reconstruction and automated tube voltage selection on the image quality and radiation dose in abdominal CT scans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:897–903
Gonzalez-Guindalini FD, Ferreira Botelho MP, Tore HG et al (2013) MDCT of chest, abdomen and pelvis using attenuation-based automated tube voltage selection in combination with iterative reconstruction: an intrapatient study of radiation dose and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1075–1082
Desai GS, Uppot RN, Yu EW et al (2012) Impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose in multidetector CT of large body size adults. Eur Radiol 22:1631–1640
Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH et al (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1266–1274
Vardhanabhuti V, Riordan RD, Mitchell GR et al (2014) Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstruction and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients. Invest Radiol 49:209–216
Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22:1613–1623
Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR et al (2013) Image quality assessment of standard- and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:545–552
Rehani MM, Berry M (2000) Radiation doses in computed tomography. The increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled. BMJ 320:593–594
Ravi P, Gray KP, O’Donnell EK, Sweeney CJ (2014) A meta-analysis of patient outcomes with subcentimeter disease after chemotherapy for metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. Ann Oncol 25:331–338
Rustin GJ, Mead GM, Stenning SP et al (2007) Randomized Trial of Two or Five Computed Tomography Scans in the Surveillance of Patients With Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors of the Testis: Medical Research Council Trial TE08, ISRCTN56475197—The National Cancer Research Institute Testis Cancer Clinical Studies Group. J Clin Oncol 25:1310–1315
Pandharipande PV, Eisenberg JD, Lee RJ et al (2013) Patients with testicular cancer undergoing CT surveillance demonstrate a pitfall of radiation-induced cancer risk estimates: the timing paradox. Radiology 266:896–904
Acknowledgments
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof Michael Maher. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. None of the study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, observational, multicentre study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sullivan, C.J., Murphy, K.P., McLaughlin, P.D. et al. Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in young patients with testicular cancer. Eur Radiol 25, 1005–1013 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3507-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3507-0