OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the ex vivo ability of dual-energy dual-source CT (DSCT) with additional tin filtration to differentiate among five groups of human renal stone types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three renal stones of 10 types were categorized into five primary groups on the basis of effective atomic numbers, which were calculated as the weighted average of the atomic numbers of constituent atoms. Stones were embedded in porcine kidneys and placed in a 35-cm water phantom. Dual-energy DSCT scans were performed at 80 and 140 kV with and without tin filtration of the 140-kV beam. The CT number ratio, defined as the ratio of the CT number of a given material in the low-energy image to the CT number of the same material in the high-energy image, was calculated on a volumetric voxel-by-voxel basis for each stone. Statistical analysis was performed, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to compare the difference in CT number ratio with and without tin filtration, and to measure the discrimination among stone groups. RESULTS: The CT number ratio of non-uric acid stones increased on average by 0.17 (range, 0.03-0.36) with tin filtration. The CT number ratios for non-uric acid stone groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between any of the two adjacent groups without tin filtration. Use of the additional tin filtration on the high-energy x-ray tube significantly improved the separation of non-uric acid stone types by CT number ratio (p < 0.05). The area under the ROC curve increased from 0.78 to 0.84 without fin filtration and to 0.89-0.95 with tin filtration. CONCLUSION: Our results showed better separation among different stone types when additional tin filtration was used on dual-energy DSCT. The increased spectral separation allowed a five-group stone classification scheme. Some overlapping between particular stone types still exists, including brushite and calcium oxalate.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the ex vivo ability of dual-energy dual-source CT (DSCT) with additional tin filtration to differentiate among five groups of humanrenal stone types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three renal stones of 10 types were categorized into five primary groups on the basis of effective atomic numbers, which were calculated as the weighted average of the atomic numbers of constituent atoms. Stones were embedded in porcine kidneys and placed in a 35-cm water phantom. Dual-energy DSCT scans were performed at 80 and 140 kV with and without tin filtration of the 140-kV beam. The CT number ratio, defined as the ratio of the CT number of a given material in the low-energy image to the CT number of the same material in the high-energy image, was calculated on a volumetric voxel-by-voxel basis for each stone. Statistical analysis was performed, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to compare the difference in CT number ratio with and without tin filtration, and to measure the discrimination among stone groups. RESULTS: The CT number ratio of non-uric acid stones increased on average by 0.17 (range, 0.03-0.36) with tin filtration. The CT number ratios for non-uric acid stone groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between any of the two adjacent groups without tin filtration. Use of the additional tin filtration on the high-energy x-ray tube significantly improved the separation of non-uric acid stone types by CT number ratio (p < 0.05). The area under the ROC curve increased from 0.78 to 0.84 without fin filtration and to 0.89-0.95 with tin filtration. CONCLUSION: Our results showed better separation among different stone types when additional tin filtration was used on dual-energy DSCT. The increased spectral separation allowed a five-group stone classification scheme. Some overlapping between particular stone types still exists, including brushite and calcium oxalate.
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Bernhard Krauss; Martin Sedlmair; Michael Grasruck; Herbert Bruder; Dominik Morhard; Christian Fink; Sabine Weckbach; Miriam Lenhard; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas G Flohr; Cynthia H McCollough; Herbert Bruder; Martin Petersilka; Klaus Gruber; Christoph Süss; Michael Grasruck; Karl Stierstorfer; Bernhard Krauss; Rainer Raupach; Andrew N Primak; Axel Küttner; Stefan Achenbach; Christoph Becker; Andreas Kopp; Bernd M Ohnesorge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-12-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew N Primak; Joel G Fletcher; Terri J Vrtiska; Oleksandr P Dzyubak; John C Lieske; Molly E Jackson; James C Williams; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Hans Scheffel; Katharina Rentsch; Thomas Schertler; Thomas Frauenfelder; Sebastian Leschka; Tullio Sulser; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Urol Res Date: 2008-06-11
Authors: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Markus Bader; Michael Staehler; Nicolas Haseke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian G Stief; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Daniel T Boll; Neil A Patil; Erik K Paulson; Elmar M Merkle; W Neal Simmons; Sean A Pierre; Glenn M Preminger Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yu Liu; Mingliang Qu; Rickey E Carter; Shuai Leng; Juan Carlos Ramirez-Giraldo; Giselle Jaramillo; Amy E Krambeck; John C Lieske; Terri J Vrtiska; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: James C Williams; Tariq Hameed; Molly E Jackson; Syed Aftab; Alessia Gambaro; Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James E Lingeman; James A McAteer Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James C Williams; James E Lingeman; Fredric L Coe; Elaine M Worcester; Andrew P Evan Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.436