Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical demand for chest/abdomen/pelvis anatomy following thoracic or lumbar spine CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine how often CT is repeated to obtain chest/abdomen/pelvis data outside the reconstructed field of view (FOV) on a prior spine CT. Radiology records of 1,239 consecutive thoracic and lumbar spine CT exams of 1,025 patients from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who subsequently had CT studies of the chest, abdomen, and/or pelvis. The CT data were also evaluated for contrast enhancement, slice thickness, radiation dose, and reason for subsequent CT exam. Over 3 years, 290 of the 1,239 (24%) spine CT exams were followed by CT of the same anatomic region to evaluate extraspinal anatomy. The use or nonuse of contrast in these follow-up studies was the same as the preceding spine study in 91 cases, which were repeated on the same day (n = 37), within 7 days (n = 19), within 8–30 days (n = 15), or after 30 days (n = 20). Fourteen of 25 (56%) T spine CTs and 34 of 52 (65%) L spine CTs without contrast were followed by a chest CT or abdomen/pelvis CT without contrast within 7 days, respectively. Among 31 pediatric exams, 6 of 31 (19%) spine CTs were followed by a CT of the same anatomic region, all within 7 days. Reconstructing full FOV images of spine CT scans in addition to the standard coned down spine FOV may reduce redundant CT imaging and radiation dose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mettler FAJ et al (2000) CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 20:353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiest PW et al (2002) CT scanning: a major source of radiation exposure. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 23(5):402–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Jong PA et al (2006) Estimation of cancer mortality associated with repetitive computed tomography scanning. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 173(2):199–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner D et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(2):289–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hunold P et al (2001) Prevalence and clinical significance of accidental findings in electron-beam tomographic scans for coronary artery calcification. Eur Heart J 22:1748–1758

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Haller S et al (2006) Coronary artery imaging with contrast-enhanced MDCT: extracardiac findings. Am J Roentgenol 187:105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Horton KM et al (2002) Prevalence of significant noncardiac findings on electron-beam computed tomography coronary artery calcium screening examinations. Circulation 106:532–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. White CS (2011) The pros and cons of searching for extracardiac findings at cardiac CT: use of a restricted field of view is acceptable. Radiology 261(2):338–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCollough C et al. (2008) The Measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT. In AAPM report No. 96, A.A.o.P.i. Medicine, Editor. College Park

  11. Budoff MJ, Gopal A (2007) Incidental findings on cardiac computed tomography. Should we look? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 1(2):97–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Budoff MJ, Fischer H, Gopal A (2006) Incidental findings with cardiac CT evaluation: should we read beyond the heart? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 68(6):965–973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Budoff MJ (2009) Ethical issues related to lung nodules on cardiac CT. Am J Roentgenol 192:146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frager DH et al (1986) Extraspinal abnormalities identified on lumbar spine CT. Neuroradiology 28:58–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Northam M, Koonce J, Ravenel JG (2007) Pulmonary nodules detected at cardiac CT: comparison of images in limited and full fields of view. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:878–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sosnouski D et al (2007) Extracardiac findings at cardiac CT: a practical approach. J Thorac Imaging 22:77–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kern KA (1994) Medicolegal analysis of the delayed diagnosis of cancer in 338 cases in the United States. Arch Surg 129(4):397–404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. White CS, Salis AI, Meyer CA (1999) Missed lung cancer on chest radiography and computed tomography: imaging and medicolegal issues. J Thorac Imaging 14(1):63–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G (2005) Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 237:395–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee SI et al (2007) Does radiologist recommendation for follow-up with the same imaging modality contribute substantially to high-cost imaging volume? Radiology 242(3):857–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Broder J, Fordham LA, Warshauer DM (2007) Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the pediatric emergency department, 2000–2006. Emerg Radiol 14:227–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lucey BC et al (2007) CT-guided intervention with low radiation dose: feasibility and experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188(5):1187–1194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Tiffany M. Newman, Honglei Zhang, Keith D. Hentel, Kevin Mennitt, Linda Heier & Martin R. Prince

  2. Department of Radiology, The Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Matthew D. Cham

Authors
  1. Tiffany M. Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew D. Cham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Honglei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keith D. Hentel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kevin Mennitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Linda Heier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin R. Prince
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiffany M. Newman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Newman, T.M., Cham, M.D., Zhang, H. et al. Clinical demand for chest/abdomen/pelvis anatomy following thoracic or lumbar spine CT. Emerg Radiol 19, 211–215 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-012-1028-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-012-1028-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation