Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CT and MRI in pregnancy and lactation Fergus Coakley MD, Professor of Radiology and Urology, Vice Chair for Clinical Services, Chief of Abdominal Imaging,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CT and MRI in pregnancy and lactation Fergus Coakley MD, Professor of Radiology and Urology, Vice Chair for Clinical Services, Chief of Abdominal Imaging,"— Presentation transcript:

1 CT and MRI in pregnancy and lactation Fergus Coakley MD, Professor of Radiology and Urology, Vice Chair for Clinical Services, Chief of Abdominal Imaging, UCSF


3 Learning objectives u Detail the safety issues related to CT and MRI during pregnancy/lactation u Describe the problematic and newer applications of CT and MRI in pregnancy u Advise clinicians on appropriate use of imaging in pregnancy/lactation

4 Medline hits for CT radiation dose Context u Growing demand and radiation awareness: –121% more tests over 10 years u Doctors poorly informed: –Superficial ACOG guidelines –5% would suggest TOP after CT u Radiologists need to take the lead RSNA program 2007; 436 AJR 2004; 182:

5 Safety of CT Safety of CT - Safety of MRI - Indications for CT and MRI

6 Risks of CT u Teratogenesis –Stochastic (threshold) u Carcinogenesis –Non-stochastic (no threshold) u Iodinated contrast

7 Teratogenesis u Unlikely 17 weeks (organogenesis) –Measured from first day of LMP –Known effects mainly on CNS: Mental/growth retardation, microcephaly, microphthalmia, cataracts u Estimated threshold dose of 5 to 15 rad –Dose from standard pelvic CT: 1-10 rad –No detected teratogenic effects in human studies Exposure of the pregnant patient to diagnostic radiations: a guide to medical management. Lippincott 1985; AJR 1996; 167: Radiology 1986; 159: Br J Radiol 1987; 60: 17-31

8 EndpointRisk Baseline risk of childhood cancer (0-15 yrs)19/10,000 Excess risk per rad of fetal whole body dose /10,000 Relative risk of childhood cancer after 5 rad2 UNSCEAR 1972 Report to the UN General Assembly National Radiological Protection Board, 1993: Thrombosis and Haemostasis 1989; 61: Carcinogenesis

9 Basis of risk estimates u Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer u 547 case-control pairs ( ): –Child (< 10) dying of cancer in England & Wales –Matched living control (age, sex, location) –Standard questionnaire to both mothers u OSCC subsequently extended: –15,276 case-control pairs by 1981 Lancet 1956; 2: 447 BJR Feb 1997;

10 Maternal radiation Control s CasesRisk To abdomen To other body part None447404NA OSCC - Results

11 Gestational age & carcinogenesis u Relative risk by trimester (OSCC data): J Radiol Prot 1988; 8: 3-8 First (< 10 weeks) First (All) SecondThird

12 What should we do? u Only perform CT of the pregnant abdomen and pelvis if critical: –Clear clinical justification with benefit >> risk –No non-ionizing imaging options –CT of other body areas much smaller concern u Risks and benefits should be discussed with the patient/parents and documented: –Signed informed consent may be wise –Sample form at

13 Parental counseling u Absolute risks: –Baseline risk of fatal childhood cancer = 1/2000 –Risk after fetal dose of 5 rads = 2/2000 u Practical comparisons for excess risk: –Driving 20,000 miles in a car –Living in New York City for 3 years u ACOG guidelines are superficial: –Describe carcinogenic risk as "very small –Conclude "abortion should not be recommended –Do not discuss parental counseling/consent Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104:

14 Imaging fertile women u Varying historical approaches: –10 day rule, 28 day rule, limited 10 day rule u Largely based on all or nothing concept of early risk, and ignores carcinogenesis u What are the regulatory and practical requirements? Statement from the 1983 Washington meeting of ICRP. Annals of International Commission on Radiological Protection 1984:14 Board statement on diagnostic medical exposure to ionising radiation during pregnancy and estimates of late radiation risks to the UK population. Documents of the NRPB 1993; 4:1-14

15 Regulatory guidelines u No requirement for pregnancy testing u ACR: Radiologists should be advised of known or possible pregnancy u HHS: A woman who is or thinks she is pregnant should be encouraged to give this information to the physician Medical radiation: a guide to good practice. ACR 1985;4-8 DHSS publication no. HHS/FDA AJR 1996; 167:

16 Good practice u Pregnancy section on requisition forms u Prominent signage u Routine questioning by technologist

17 Good practice u No safe time during menstrual cycle: –Various day rules are obsolete u Any possibility of pregnancy: –Consult with clinician +/- perform pregnancy test u Earliest positive pregnancy test: –Serum hCG - 7 days after conception –Urinary hCG - first day of missed period u STALL!! –Request other opinions, e.g. surgical consult

18 Inadvertent exposure 17 year old undergoing CT for incidentally discovered FNH - denied any possibility of pregnancy Case 1

19 Inadvertent exposure Case 2 46 year old - denied pregnancy irregular periods

20 Inadvertent exposure Case 3 21 year old – post BMT for CML – no periods for 6/12 but denied pregnancy – now with nausea and cramping

21 Inadvertent exposure Case 4 27 year old - denied pregnancy late period (5 weeks gestation)

22 Inadvertent exposure GESTATIONAL SAC DECIDUAL REACTION Case 4

23 Inadvertent exposure Case 5 20 year old at 7 weeks gestation with RLQ pain GESTATIONAL SAC PLACENTA CORPUS LUTEUM

24 SourceFetal dose guideline Hammer-JacobsenAdvisable if > 10 rad (Danish rule) Wagner et al Consider if > 5 rad at 2 to 15 weeks Recommend if > 15 rad HallConsider if > 10 rad at 10 days to 26 weeks Danish Med Bull 1959; 6: Exposure of the pregnant patient to diagnostic radiations: a guide to medical management. Lippincott 1985; Radiobiology for the radiologist, 4th ed. 1994: Exposure and termination

25 Fetal doses Patel, S. J. et al. Radiographics 2007; 27: Key point: Radiation dose from single CT of the pelvis is highly unlikely to justify termination Copyright ©Radiological Society of North America, rad2 rad3 rad

26 What about PET? u Rare - two reported cases u Fetal dose estimates vary: –0.8, 1.2, and 1.5 mGy/mCi –May vary with gestational age J Nucl Med 2010; 51: J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 679–82 J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 634–5 J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 1522–30 40 year old woman with metastatic breast cancer – no periods for 5 years mCi FDG Fetal dose = mGy (1-1.9 rad)

27 Iodinated contrast in pregnancy u Iodinated contrast should be avoided: –Amniography can cause hypothyroidism –Mutagenic to human cells in vitro u NOT teratogenic in animals u Better than rescanning? Invest Radiol 1982; 17: Eur J Radiol 1994; 18 (Suppl 1): Invest Radiol 1989; 24 (Suppl 1): Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976; 126:

28 Neonatal hypothyroidism? u 23 babies of 21 women: –All had contrast-enhanced CT during pregnancy –No cases of neonatal hypothyroidism u 343 babies of 332 women: –All had CECT for PE during pregnancy –No cases of neonatal hypothyroidism (transient reduced TSH in one) AJR 2008; 191: Radiology 2010; 256:

29 Iodinated contrast and lactation u Standard recommendation: –Stop breast-feeding for 24 hours u Weak rationale: –Minimal passage of IV contrast into breast milk –Minimal absorption of oral iodinated contrast –No thyroid dysfunction after neonatal IV contrast u Recommendation recently questioned: –Personal approach - continue breast-feeding Eur J Radiol 1992; 12: Acta Radiol Suppl. 1980; 362: Eur Radiol 2005; 15:

30 Safety of MRI Safety of CT - Safety of MRI - Indications for CT and MRI

31 Risks of MRI u Teratogenesis u Acoustic damage u Gadolinium toxicity

32 Teratogenesis: Chick embryo study 304 chick embryos 1.5T x 6 hours Controls 19.5% abnormal/dead 10.7% abnormal/dead JMRI 1994; 4: Statistically significant difference

33 Acoustic damage u Follow-up of 20 children after fetal EPI: –16/18 passed hearing test at 8/12 (16.7 expected) u Intragastric sound intensity measurement: –Fetal exposure < maternal Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: Br J Radiol 1995; 68:

34 Gadolinium toxicity u Teratogenic: Skeletal malformations –0.5 mmol/kg/day x 13 days to pregnant rabbits –No adverse effect in small human studies –Use only if essential Omniscan package insert, Nycomed, Princeton, NJ Radiology 1997; 205: Clin Radiology 2000; 55: Radiology 2011; 258: u Clears rapidly from fetus and amniotic fluid in mice

35 Categor y Fetal dose (rads) A Controlled studies in women fail to demonstrate a risk to the fetus – remote possibility of fetal harm B Animal studies show no risks, but there are no controlled human studies Adverse effects in animals, but not in well-controlled human studies Use in pregnancy considered probably safe (e.g. acetaminophen) C Studies in animals have revealed adverse effects on the fetus and no controlled studies in women, or studies in women and animals not available Only use if benefit justifies the potential risk (most prescribed medications) D Positive evidence of human fetal risk Benefits may be acceptable if the risk is high (life-threatening situation or serious disease with no other options, e.g., most chemotherapy drugs) X Studies in animals or women have demonstrated fetal abnormalities Not to be used – absolutely contra-indication (e.g., thalidomide) FDA and drugs in pregnancy IODINATED CONTRAST GADOLINIUM

36 Gadolinium and lactation u Package insert recommendation: –Unknown if this drug is excreted in human milk –Caution should be exercised u Recent study of 20 lactating women: –< 0.04% of maternal dose passes into milk –Less than 1% of permitted IV neonatal dose u Suspension of nursing not warranted? Omniscan package insert - Radiology 2000; 216: Eur Radiol 2005; 15:

37 Indications for CT and MRI Safety of CT - Safety of MRI - Indications for CT and MRI

38 Maternal PELVICEXTRA-PELVIC Obstetric Pelvimetry Placenta accreta Adnexal mass Red degeneration of fibroid Postpartum uterine mass Cerebral venous thrombosis Pulmonary embolism HELLP syndrome Other Acute appendicitis Flank pain Trauma Malignancy Indications for CT/MRI in pregnancy Fetal Mainly MRI of CNS anomalies – some body applications

39 Pulmonary embolism u PE rate = 0.7 per 1000 pregnancies: –50% occur after Cesarean section u Imaging options: –V/Q scan, helical CT, pulmonary angiography –No comparative studies in pregnancy –25% of V/Q scans nondiagnostic in pregnancy (v. 7% in nonpregnant patients) Angiology 2002; 53: Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: Arch Intern Med 2002;162:

40 TestFetal dose Helical CT microGy Rises from first to third trimester V/Q scan microGy Assumes reduced dose of Tc 99m (37-74 MBq) Pulmonary angiogram 500 microGy Assumes brachial approach Radiology 2002; 224: Radiation doses from PE studies

41 Perfusion only scan? British Medical Journal 2005; 331: 350 DoseCTPAQ scan Maternal2.0 Sv0.6 Sv Breast10.0 mGy0.28 mGy Fetus0.01 mGy0.12 mGy

42 Acute appendicitis in pregnancy u Major indication for surgery in pregnancy: –1 in 1500 pregnancies –Diagnosis clinically difficult, 25% perforation rate u Limited data on role of imaging: –CT 100% accurate (n = 2 of 7) –US 100% sensitive & 96% specific (n = 15 of 42) –US could not be performed in 3 (all > 35 weeks) Mil Med. 1999; 164: Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: AJR 1992; 159:

43 Appendix hard to see near term APPENDIX 34 weeks APPENDIX? 37 weeks

44 MRI for appendicitis in pregnancy u Dutch study of 12 suspected cases: –Mean gestational age of 17 weeks (range, 7-35) –3 with surgically proven appendicitis *17 and 35 weeks gestation AJR 2004; 183: True positiveTrue negativeNot seen US1011 MRI372*

45 MRI for appendicitis in pregnancy u Beth Israel study of 51 suspected cases: –Mean gestational age of 20 weeks (range, 4-38) –Oral Gastromark/Readi-Cat mix (dark on T1 & T2) –Three planes of SSFSE u Sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 93.6% –Only 4 proven appendicitis (3 surgical, 1 CT) –Gestational ages of 13, 20, 27, and 31 weeks Radiology 2006; 238: NormalPositive

46 MRI for appendicitis in pregnancy NormalPositive

47 UCSF experience TRUE POSITIVE 34 weeks TRUE NEGATIVE 31 weeks T2 T1

48 TRUE NEGATIVE 32 weeks TRUE NEGATIVE UCSF experience ? 26 weeks TRUE NEGATIVE CT prior to pregnancy


50 Flank pain u Hydronephrosis common in pregnancy: –Probably mechanical –Consider stones, etc if symptomatic u Imaging options: –US, NECT, IVP, isotope renography, MRU –No established optimal approach

51 Imaging stones in pregnancy u Incidence: 0.3 per 1000 deliveries u Detection of calculi by first test ( n = 57): –Renal US - 21 of 35 (60%) –AXR - 4 of 7 (57%) –IVP - 13 of 14 (93%) u Estimated fetal doses: –IVP = 1.4 rad –CT = 2.6 rad Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: Am Fam Physician 1999; 59: AJR 2002; 178:


53 MRU in pregnancy u Two techniques for MRU: –Static - heavily T2W images –Dynamic (MREU) - serial T1W images after standard dose of gadolinium –BUT gadolinium is teratogenic!! u Alternative to IVU? –Stones seen in 4/15 patients 1 –MREU/MAG3 concordant in 8/9 cases 2 1. Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 13: Clinical Radiology 2000; 55: FSE MRU

54 Take home points u CT and pregnancy: –Teratogenesis unlikely at diagnostic doses –Carcinogenesis is a real risk –Document risk/benefit discussion, or signed consent u MRI and pregnancy: –No proven risk, but avoid first trimester studies u Contrast and pregnancy/lactation: –Iodinated contrast is (probably) safe –Gadolinium is (relatively) contraindicated –No need to stop breast-feeding

55 Take home points u Suspected PE in pregnancy: –CT preferred to V/Q scans throughout pregnancy u Suspected appendicitis in pregnancy: –All modalities limited near term - US worth trying –MRI may help if US inconclusive u Flank pain in pregnancy: –US first – but may be indeterminate –Manage symptomatically versus limited IVP? –Remember forniceal rupture u Obstet & Gynecol 2008; 112:

56 Case study u 20 year with SEVERE flare of known Crohns disease at 19 weeks gestation u Must rule out abscess - GI attending CONTRAST-ENHANCED CT OR GAD-ENHANCED MRI?

57 Weve created a safe, nonjudgmental environment that will leave your child ill prepared for real life

Download ppt "CT and MRI in pregnancy and lactation Fergus Coakley MD, Professor of Radiology and Urology, Vice Chair for Clinical Services, Chief of Abdominal Imaging,"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google