INTRODUCTION: Both fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography (fVCUG) and direct isotope cystography (DIC) are diagnostic tools commonly used in pediatric urology.
Both methods can detect vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) with a high sensitivity. Whilst the possibility to depict anatomical details and important structures as for instance the urethra in boys or the detailed calyceal anatomy are advantages of fVCUG, a lower radiation burden is thought to be the main advantage of DIC. In the last decade, however, a rapid technical evolution has occurred in fluoroscopy by implementing digital grid-controlled, variable rate, pulsed acquisition technique. As documented in literature this led to a substantial decrease in radiation burden conferred during fVCUGs.
OBJECTIVE: To question the common belief that direct isotope cystography confers less radiation burden compared to state of the art fluoroscopic voiding cystography.
STUDY DESIGN: Radiation burden of direct isotope cystography in 92 children and in additional 7 children after an adaption of protocol was compared to radiation burden of fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography in 51. The examinations were performed according to institutional protocols. For calculation of mean effective radiation dose [mSv] for either method published physical models correcting for age and sex were used. For DIC the model published by Stabin et al., 1998 was applied, for fVCUG two different physical models were used (Schultz et al., 1999, Lee et al., 2009).
RESULTS: The radiation burden conferred by direct isotope cystography was significantly higher as for fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography. The mean effective radiation dose for direct isotope cystography accounted to 0.23 mSv (±0.34 m, median 0.085 mSv) compared to 0.015 mSv (±0.013, median 0.008 mSv, model by Schultz et al.) - 0.024 mSv (±0.018, median 0.018 mSv, model by Lee et al.) for fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography. After a protocol adaption to correct for a longer examination time in DIC that was caused by filling until calculated bladder capacity, mean radiation burden accounted to .07 mSv (median 0.07 mSv) and the values were less scattered.
DISCUSSION: As it had to be expected from literature, radiation dose from fVCUG, if modern image acquisition techniques are used, is even less than from DIC. In our protocol, according to nuclear medicine standards, bladders were filled until calculated capacity. This resulted in a longer examination time for the patients with a higher functional capacity, resulting in relatively higher radiation burden. However, also if the protocol is changed or only the patients with relatively fast bladder emptying are considered, radiation burden conferred by DIC is higher (at least × 2.9, comparing the "worst" case for fVCUG with the "best" case for DIC). Absolute radiation burden conferred by either exam is extremely low compared to other medical radiation exposures as well as to environmental radiation. Consequently it is most probably not relevant for the individual child's future risk for cancer or other radiation damage. However, because of repeated investigations with correspondingly higher radiation burden in this patient group the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle should lead to a optimized use of fVCUG rather than an uncritical use of DIC, given that modern acquisition standards are available and radiation measurement is performed. Also, fVCUG provides more information concerning anatomical details compared to DIC.
CONCLUSION: Contrary to common beliefs, effective radiation dose conferred during fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography is significantly lower than during direct isotope cystography. The prerequisite for our findings, however, is the use of modern image acquisition tools and an optimized protocol. Both exams confer low radiation doses probably only relevant to children undergoing repeated radiation exposure. Nevertheless, this findings should be considered in indication for either exam in order to reduce the radiation burden to a minimum whilst optimizing the information yield.
Written by:
Haid B, Becker T, Koen M, Berger C, Langsteger W, Gruy B, Putz E, Haid S, Oswald J. Are you the author?
Department of Pediatric Urology, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Linz, Austria; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Linz, Austria; Department of Radio-Oncology, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Linz, Austria; Department of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Linz, Austria.
Reference: J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Feb;11(1):35.e1-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.08.015
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 25748630