Search

The potential enviromental impact of iodinated (ICAs) and gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have recently come under scrutiny, considering the current nonselective wastewater treatment. However, their rapid excretion after intravenous administration could allow their potential recovery by targeting hospital sewage. The GREENWATER study aims to appraise the effective quantities of ICAs and GBCAs retrievable from patients' urine collected after computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams, selecting ICA/GBCA per-patient urinary excretion and patients' acceptance rate as study endpoints. Within a prospective, observational, single-centre, 1-year framework, we will enrol outpatients aged ≥ 18 years, scheduled to perform contrast-enhanced CT or MRI, willing to collect post-examination urine in dedicated canisters by prolonging their hospital stay to 1 h after injection. Collected urine will be processed and partially stored in the institutional biobank. Patient-based analysis will be performed for the first 100 CT and 100 MRI patients, and then, all analyses will be conducted on the pooled urinary sample. Quantification of urinary iodine and gadolinium will be performed with spectroscopy after oxidative digestion. The evaluation of the acceptance rate will assess the "environmental awareness" of patients and will aid to model how procedures to reduce ICA/GBCA enviromental impact could be adapted in different settings. Key points • Enviromental impact of iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents represents a growing point of attention.• Current wastewater treatment is unable to retrieve and recycle contrast agents.• Prolonging hospital stay may allow contrast agents retrieval from patients' urine.• The GREENWATER study will assess the effectively retrievable contrast agents' quantities.• The enrolment acceptance rate will allow to evaluate patients' "green sensitivity"., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CEM diagnostic performance considering different interpretation methods and clinical settings. Materials and Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to July 15, 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating CEM diagnostic performance with histopathology and/or follow-up as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the hierarchical bivariate model, pooling studies with the same image interpretation approach or focused on the same findings. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results Sixty studies (67 study parts, 11 049 CEM examinations in 10 605 patients) were included. The overall area under the HSROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 55.7 (95% CI: 42.7, 72.7) with high heterogeneity (τ 2 = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, P < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, P = .03) compared with recombined images alone. At subgroup analysis, CEM showed a 95% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 92, 97) and a 78% pooled specificity (95% CI: 66, 87) from nine studies in patients with dense breasts, while in 10 studies on mammography-detected suspicious findings, CEM had a 92% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 89, 94) and an 84% pooled specificity (95% CI: 73, 91). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography demonstrated high performance in breast cancer detection, especially with joint interpretation of low-energy and recombined images. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Aim: To review contrast medium administration protocols used for cardiothoracic applications of time-resolved, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) sequences., Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the literature (Medline/EMBASE) was performed to identify articles utilising time-resolved MRA sequences, focusing on type of sequence, adopted technical parameters, contrast agent (CA) issues, and acquisition workflow. Study design, year of publication, population, magnetic field strength, type, dose, and injection parameters of CA, as well as technical parameters of time-resolved MRA sequences were extracted., Results: Of 117 retrieved articles, 16 matched the inclusion criteria. The study design was prospective in 9/16 (56%) articles, and study population ranged from 5 to 185 patients, for a total of 506 patients who underwent cardiothoracic time-resolved MRA. Magnetic field strength was 1.5 T in 13/16 (81%), and 3 T in 3/16 (19%) articles. The administered CA was gadobutrol (Gadovist) in 6/16 (37%) articles, gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist) in 5/16 (31%), gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in 2/16 (13%), gadodiamide (Omniscan) in 2/16 (13%), gadofosveset trisodium (Ablavar, previously Vasovist) in 1/16 (6%). CA showed highly variable doses among studies: fixed amount or based on patient body weight (0.02-0.2 mmol/kg) and was injected with a flow rate ranging 1-5 ml/s. Sequences were TWIST in 13/16 (81%), TRICKS in 2/16 (13%), and CENTRA 1/16 articles (6%)., Conclusion: Time-resolved MRA sequences were adopted in different clinical settings with a large spectrum of technical approaches, mostly in association with different CA dose, type, and injection method. Further studies in relation to specific clinical indications are warranted to provide a common standardised acquisition protocol., (Copyright © 2020 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)