European Journal of Medical Research (Dec 2018)

Noise insertion in CT for cocaine body packing: where is the limit of extensive dose reduction?

  • Joel Aissa,
  • Edwin Bölke,
  • Lino M. Sawicki,
  • Elisabeth Appel,
  • Christoph Thomas,
  • Philipp Heusch,
  • Martin Sedlmair,
  • Karl Krzymyk,
  • Patric Kröpil,
  • Gerald Antoch,
  • Johannes Boos

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-018-0356-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background To evaluate the detection rate and image quality in CT-body-packer-screening at different radiation-dose levels and to determine a dose threshold that enables a reliable detection of incorporated body packs and incidental findings with a maximum of dose saving. Materials and methods We retrospectively included 27 individuals who underwent an abdominal CT with automated exposure control due to suspected body packing. CT images were reconstructed at different radiation-dose levels of 50%, 10, 5% and 1% using iterative reconstructions. All 135 CT reconstructions were evaluated by three independent readers. Reviewers determined the presence of foreign bodies and evaluated the image quality using a 5-point ranking scale. In addition, visualization of incidental findings was assessed. Results A threshold of 5% (effective dose 0.11 ± 0.07 mSv) was necessary to correctly identify all 27 patients with suspected body packing. Extensive noise insertion to a dose level of 1% (0.02 ± 0.01 mSV) led to false-positive solid cocaine findings in three patients. Image quality was comparable between 100 and 50%. The threshold for correct identification of incidental findings was 10% of the initial dose (effective dose 0.21 ± 0.13 mSv). Conclusions Our results indicate that dose of abdominal CT for the detection of intracorporeal cocaine body packets can be markedly reduced to up to 5% of the initial dose while still providing sufficient image quality to detect ingested body packets. However, a minimum effective dose of 0.21 mSv (10% of initial dose) seems to be required to properly identify incidental findings.

Keywords