Literature DB >> 21339353

Quantification of urinary stone volume: attenuation threshold-based CT method--a technical note.

Shadpour Demehri1, Mannudeep K Kalra, Frank J Rybicki, Michael L Steigner, Matthew J Lang, E Andres Houseman, Gary C Curhan, Stuart G Silverman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare two threshold-based computed tomographic (CT) methods for the quantification of urinary stone volume; to assess their accuracy and precision at varying tube voltages, tube currents, and section thicknesses in a phantom; and to determine interobserver agreement with each of these methods in a pilot clinical study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval, written informed consent was waived. The study was HIPAA compliant. Thirty-six calcium oxalate stones were scanned in an anthropomorphic phantom. For the fixed threshold method, stones were segmented with 0.6-mm-thick sections by using attenuation thresholds of 130 and 575 HU (equal to half of mean attenuation of all stones). For the variable threshold method, stones were segmented at an attenuation threshold equal to half of the attenuation of each stone and at variable section thicknesses (0.6, 1, and 3 mm), tube currents (150, 100, and 50 mAs [reference]), and tube voltages (100 and 80 kVp). Normalized Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the bias and precision of the two CT methods compared with that of the fluid displacement method (reference standard). Two independent readers retrospectively measured stone volumes in 17 patients (male-to-female ratio, 1.4; mean age, 55 years), and interobserver agreement was assessed by using Bland-Altman limits of agreement.
RESULTS: The variable threshold method was more accurate and precise than the fixed threshold method with an attenuation threshold of 130 HU (P < .0001). Thinner sections (0.6 and 1 mm) resulted in more accurate (P < .05) and precise (P < .0001) stone volume measurements than 3-mm-thick sections. With the variable threshold method, no significant difference was seen in the accuracy and precision of stone volume measurements at various tube currents and tube potentials. Interobserver agreement was high with the fixed and variable threshold methods (r > 0.97).
CONCLUSION: An attenuation threshold-based CT method can be used to quantify urinary stone volume even at low radiation doses. The most accurate and precise method utilizes variable attenuation derived from the attenuation of each stone and thin sections. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21339353     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  13 in total

1.  Urinary stone size estimation: a new segmentation algorithm-based CT method.

Authors:  Mats Lidén; Torbjörn Andersson; Mathias Broxvall; Per Thunberg; Håkan Geijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Consistency of Renal Stone Volume Measurements Across CT Scanner Model and Reconstruction Algorithm Configurations.

Authors:  Alice E Huang; Juan C Montoya; Maria Shiung; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  In-vitro comparison of different slice thicknesses and kernel settings for measurement of urinary stone size by computed tomography.

Authors:  Roland Umbach; Jochen-Klaus Müller; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Thomas Knoll; Jan Peter Jessen
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Kidney stone volume estimation from computerized tomography images using a model based method of correcting for the point spread function.

Authors:  Xinhui Duan; Jia Wang; Mingliang Qu; Shuai Leng; Yu Liu; Amy Krambeck; Cynthia McCollough
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Kidney stones and imaging: what can your radiologist do for you?

Authors:  Raphaële Renard-Penna; Aurélie Martin; Pierre Conort; Pierre Mozer; Philippe Grenier
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Quantification of asymptomatic kidney stone burden by computed tomography for predicting future symptomatic stone events.

Authors:  Michael G Selby; Terri J Vrtiska; Amy E Krambeck; Cynthia H McCollough; Hisham E Elsherbiny; Eric J Bergstralh; John C Lieske; Andrew D Rule
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Characterisation of urinary stones in the presence of iodinated contrast medium using dual-energy CT: a phantom study.

Authors:  Jia Wang; Mingliang Qu; Xinhui Duan; Naoki Takahashi; Akira Kawashima; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-08-04       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity Score for Predicting Stone-Free Rate after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Chang Wook Jeong; Jin-Woo Jung; Woo Heon Cha; Byung Ki Lee; Sangchul Lee; Seong Jin Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Prediction of spontaneous ureteral stone passage: Automated 3D-measurements perform equal to radiologists, and linear measurements equal to volumetric.

Authors:  Johan Jendeberg; Håkan Geijer; Muhammed Alshamari; Mats Lidén
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Correlation of volume, position of stone, and hydronephrosis with microhematuria in patients with solitary urolithiasis.

Authors:  Mehmet Fatih Inci; Fuat Ozkan; Selim Bozkurt; Mustafa Haki Sucakli; Bulent Altunoluk; Mehmet Okumus
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2013-04-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.