Radiation exposure in vesicoureteral reflux diagnostics: a comparative study of direct radionuclide cystography and voiding cystourethrogram.


Journal

Nuclear medicine communications
ISSN: 1473-5628
Titre abrégé: Nucl Med Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8201017

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Oct 2024
Historique:
medline: 16 10 2024
pubmed: 16 10 2024
entrez: 16 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) is the standard method for diagnosing vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) but has been criticized for radiation exposure. Direct radionuclide cystography (DRC) was developed to reduce this risk. We aimed to assess DRC's efficacy as a screening tool and compare its radiation burden to VCUG. We retrospectively analyzed patient records encompassing children who underwent VCUG or DRC to diagnose VUR from 2011 to 2020 at our hospital. A total of 156 children were included (median age: 0.75 years, 53.8% females). Indications included urinary tract infection in 71.2% of patients and antenatal hydronephrosis in 26.9%. DRC was performed on 122 patients (78.2%) and VCUG on 96 patients (61.5%), with solitary use in 38.5 and 21.8% of cases, respectively, and combined application in 39.7%. DRC detected VUR in 35.3% (43/122) and VCUG in 61.5% (59/96) of patients. Bladder-filling rates differed significantly between DRC (37%) and VCUG (67%) (P < 0.0001). Median radiation doses were lower in VCUG (0.023 mSv) than in DRC (0.073 mSv). For patients requiring complementary VCUG after DRC, the median radiation dose for DRC was 0.063 mSv (P < 0.0001), resulting in a total median dose of 0.098 mSv. Cost analysis revealed VCUG as more cost-effective, with an additional expenditure of approximately 345 euros per patient undergoing DRC in our cohort. DRC imposed a higher radiation burden on patients than VCUG and often necessitated follow-up VCUG for positive cases. This challenges the utility of DRC as a low-radiation alternative in VUR screening. Level 4: cohort study without a control group.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39410903
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001918
pii: 00006231-990000000-00353
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Radmayr C, Schwentner C, Lunacek A, Karatzas A, Oswald J. Embryology and anatomy of the vesicoureteric junction with special reference to the etiology of vesicoureteral reflux. Ther Adv Urol. 2009; 1:243–250.
Skoog SJ, Peters CA, Arant BS, Copp HL, Elder JS, Hudson RG, et al. Pediatric vesicoureteral reflux guidelines panel summary report: clinical practice guidelines for screening siblings of children with vesicoureteral reflux and neonates/infants with prenatal hydronephrosis. J Urol 2010; 184:1145–1151.
Garin EH. Primary vesicoureteral reflux; what have we learnt from the recently published randomized, controlled trials? Pediatr Nephrol 2019; 34:1513–1519.
Venhola M, Hannula A, Huttunen NP, Renko M, Pokka T, Uhari M. Occurrence of vesicoureteral reflux in children. Acta Paediatr 2010; 99:1875–1878.
Gnech M, ’t Hoen L, Zachou A, Bogaert G, Castagnetti M, O’Kelly F, et al. Update and summary of the European Association of Urology/European Society of Paediatric Urology Paediatric Guidelines on Vesicoureteral Reflux in Children. Eur Urol 2024; 85:433–442.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline [NG224]: Urinary tract infection in under 16s: diagnosis and management; 2022. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng224. [Accessed 10 October 2024]
Peters CA, Skoog SJ, Arant BS, Copp H, Elder J, Hudson RG, et al. AUA guidelines: management and screening of primary vesicoureteral reflux in children; 2017.
Yang SS, Tsai JD, Kanematsu A, Han CH. Asian guidelines for urinary tract infection in children. J Infect Chemother 2021; 27:1543–1554.
Johnson EK, Malhotra NR, Shannon R, Jacobson DL, Green J, Rigsby CK, et al. Urinary tract infection after voiding cystourethrogram. J Pediatr Urol 2017; 13:384.e1–384.e7.
American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria. Urinary tract infection–child. 2023. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69444/Narrative/. [Accessed 10 October 2024]
Fettich J, Colarinha P, Fischer S, Frökier J, Gordon I, Hahn K, et al. Guidelines for direct radionuclide cystography in children. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:B39–B44.
Koff SA. Estimating bladder capacity in children. Urology 1983; 21:248.
Stabin MG, Gelfand MJ. Dosimetry of pediatric nuclear medicine procedures. Q J Nucl Med 1998; 42:93.
Haid B, Becker T, Koen M, Berger C, Langsteger W, Gruy B, et al. Lower radiation burden in state of the art fluoroscopic cystography compared to direct isotope cystography in children. J Pediatr Urol 2015; 11:35.e1–35.e6.
Benya EC, Prendergast FM, Liu DB, Wyers MR. Assessment of distal ureteral and ureterovesical junction visualization on contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography. Pediatr Radiol 2021; 51:1406–1411.
Dalirani R, Mahyar A, Sharifian M, Mohkam M, Esfandiar N, Ghehsareh Ardestani A. The value of direct radionuclide cystography in the detection of vesicoureteral reflux in children with normal voiding cystourethrography. Pediatr Nephrol 2014; 29:2341–2345.
Saraga M, Stanicić A, Marković V. The role of direct radionuclide cystography in evaluation of vesicoureteral reflux. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1996; 30:367–371.
Sükan A, Bayazit AK, Kibar M, Noyan A, Soyupak S, Yapar Z, Anarat A. Comparison of direct radionuclide cystography and voiding direct cystography in the detection of vesicoureteral reflux. Ann Nucl Med 2003; 17:549–553.
Unver T, Alpay H, Biyikli NK, Ones T. Comparison of direct radionuclide cystography and voiding cystourethrography in detecting vesicoureteral reflux. Pediatr Int 2006; 48:287–291.
Kutanzi KR, Lumen A, Koturbash I, Miousse IR. Pediatric exposures to ionizing radiation: carcinogenic considerations. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13:1057.
Mazrani W, McHugh K, Marsden PJ. The radiation burden of radiological investigations. Arch Dis Child 2007; 92:1127–1131.
International Commission on Radiation Protection. IRCP publication 103: the 2007 recommendations on the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann IRCP 2007; 37:2–4.

Auteurs

Hanna-Reeta Viljamaa (HR)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Turku University Hospital.

Liisi L M Ripatti (LLM)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Turku University Hospital.

Heli R S Larjava (HRS)

Departments of Medical Physics and Radiology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku.

Tommi E J Noponen (TEJ)

Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Turku PET Centre.
Department of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital and The wellbeing services county of Southwest Finland, Turku.

Aleksi Saikkonen (A)

Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Turku PET Centre.
Department of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital and The wellbeing services county of Southwest Finland, Turku.

Päivi T K Rautava (PTK)

Department of Public Health, University of Turku, Turku Clinical Research Centre, Turku University Hospital.

Mari A Koivisto (MA)

Department of Biostatistics, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku.

Niklas A Pakkasjärvi (NA)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Turku University Hospital.
Department of Pediatric Surgery, New Children's Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Section of Urology, Uppsala Akademiska Barnsjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden.

Classifications MeSH