Advertisement

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 145–150 | Cite as

Optimizing radiation exposure in screening of body packing: image quality and diagnostic acceptability of an 80 kVp protocol with automated tube current modulation

  • Joel AissaEmail author
  • Johannes Boos
  • Christian Rubbert
  • Julian Caspers
  • Christoph Schleich
  • Christoph Thomas
  • Patric Kröpil
  • Gerald Antoch
  • Falk Miese
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the objective and subjective image quality of a novel computed tomography (CT) protocol with reduced radiation dose for body packing with 80 kVp and automated tube current modulation (ATCM) compared to a standard body packing CT protocol. 80 individuals who were examined between March 2012 and July 2015 in suspicion of ingested drug packets were retrospectively included in this study. Thirty-one CT examinations were performed using ATCM and a fixed tube voltage of 80 kVp (group A). Forty-nine CT examinations were performed using a standard protocol with a tube voltage of 120 kVp and a fixed tube current time product of 40 mAs (group B). Subjective and objective image quality and visibility of drug packets were assessed. Radiation exposure of both protocols was compared. Contrast-to-noise ratio (group A: 0.56 ± 0.36; group B: 1.13 ± 0.91) and Signal-to-noise ratio (group A: 3.69 ± 0.98; group B: 7.08 ± 2.67) were significantly lower for group A compared to group B (p < 0.001). Subjectively, image quality was decreased for group A compared to group B (2.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.2 ± 0.4; p < 0.001). Attenuation of body packets was higher with the new protocol (group A: 362.2 ± 70.3 Hounsfield Units (HU); group B: 210.6 ± 60.2 HU; p = 0.005). Volumetric Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDIvol) and Dose Length Product (DLP) were significantly lower in group A (CTDIvol 2.2 ± 0.9 mGy, DLP 105.7 ± 52.3 mGycm) as compared to group B (CTDIvol 2.7 ± 0.1 mGy, DLP 126.0 ± 9.7 mGycm, p = 0.002 and p = 0.01). The novel 80 kVp CT protocol with ATCM leads to a significant dose reduction compared to a standard CT body packing protocol. The novel protocol led to a diagnostic image quality and cocaine body packets were reliably detected due to the high attenuation.

Keywords

Body packing Cocaine Radiation dose reduction Acute abdominal Forensic radiology 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

No Funding.

Conflict of interest

No Conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

All patients either gave written informed consent to the imaging or a judicial decision was obtained before the CT scan. Written informed consent for the study was not obtained due to the retrospective design of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Traub SJ, Hoffman RS, Nelson LS. Body packing-the internal concealment of illicit drugs. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2519–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wetli CV, Mittlemann RE. The “body packer syndrome”-toxicity following ingestion of illicit drugs packaged for transportation. J Forensic Sci. 1981;26:492–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang RM, Li L, Feng J, Lai SS, Lin BQ, Yu T, et al. Heroin body packing: clearly discerning drug packets using CT. South Med J. 2009;102:470–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulakci M, Kalelioglu T, Bulakci BB, Kiris A. Comparison of diagnostic value of multidetector computed tomography and X-ray in the detection of body packing. Eur J Radiol [Internet]. 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357250. Accessed 23 September 2016.
  5. 5.
    Poletti PA, Canel L, Becker CD, Wolff H, Elger B, Lock E, et al. Screening of illegal intracorporeal containers (“body packing”): is abdominal radiography sufficiently accurate? A comparative study with low-dose CT. Radiology. 2012;265:772–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schulz B, Grossbach A, Gruber-Rouh T, Zangos S, Vogl TJ, Eichler K. Body packers on your examination table: how helpful are plain x-ray images? A definitive low-dose CT protocol as a diagnosis tool for body packers. Clin Radiol. 2014;69:e525–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aissa J, Rubbert C, Boos J, Schleich C, Thomas C, Kröpil P, et al. Low-tube voltage 100 kVp MDCT in screening of cocaine body packing: image quality and radiation dose compared to 120 kVp MDCT. Abdom Imaging [Internet]. 2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26048697. Accessed 30 October 2016.
  8. 8.
    Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, Schmidlin FR, Iselin CE, Becker CD. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR. 2007;188:927–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Yoshizumi T, Toncheva G, Nguyen G, DeLong DM, et al. Effect of automatic tube current modulation on radiation dose and image quality for low tube voltage multidetector row CT angiography: phantom study. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:997–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Menke J. Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults. Radiology. 2005;236:565–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Papadakis AE, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J. Automatic exposure control in CT: the effect of patient size, anatomical region and prescribed modulation strength on tube current and image quality. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2520–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics. 2002;22:1541–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Båth M, Månsson LG. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:169–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. Report No. 96. Am Assoc Phys Med. 2008; College Park.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations (Report 204). American Asssociation of Physicists in Medicine. 2011. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_204.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2015.
  16. 16.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248:254–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maurer MH, Niehues SM, Schnapauff D, Grieser C, Rothe JH, Waldmüller D, et al. Low-dose computed tomography to detect body-packing in an animal model. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78:302–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cappelletti S, Piacentino D, Sani G, Bottoni E, Fiore PA, Aromatario M, et al. Systematic review of the toxicological and radiological features of body packing. Int J Legal Med. 2016;130:693–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidt S, Hugli O, Rizzo E, Lepori D, Gudinchet F, Yersin B, et al. Detection of ingested cocaine-filled packets--diagnostic value of unenhanced CT. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67:133–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hergan K, Kofler K, Oser W. Drug smuggling by body packing: what radiologists should know about it. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:736–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel Aissa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johannes Boos
    • 1
  • Christian Rubbert
    • 1
  • Julian Caspers
    • 1
  • Christoph Schleich
    • 1
  • Christoph Thomas
    • 1
  • Patric Kröpil
    • 1
  • Gerald Antoch
    • 1
  • Falk Miese
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Dusseldorf, Medical FacultyDusseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations