PURPOSE: We differentiated calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate kidney stones using micro and clinical computerized tomography images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 22 calcium oxalate monohydrate and 15 calcium oxalate dihydrate human kidney stones were scanned using a commercial micro-computerized tomography scanner with a pixel size of 7 to 23 μm. Under an institutional review board approved protocol, image data on 10 calcium oxalate monohydrate and 9 calcium oxalate dihydrate stones greater than 5 mm were retrieved from a total of 80 patients who underwent clinical dual energy computerized tomography for clinical indications and had stones available for infrared spectroscopic compositional analysis. Micro and clinical computerized tomography images were processed using in-house software, which quantified stone surface morphology with curvature based calculations. A shape index was generated as a quantitative shape metric to differentiate calcium oxalate monohydrate from calcium oxalate dihydrate stones. Statistical tests were used to test the performance of the shape index. RESULTS: On micro-computerized tomography images the shape index of calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones significantly differed (ROC curve AUC 0.92, p <0.0001). At the optimal cutoff sensitivity was 0.93 and specificity was 0.91. On clinical computerized tomography images a significant morphological difference was also detected (p = 0.007). AUC, sensitivity and specificity were 0.90, 1 and 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On micro and clinical computerized tomography images a morphological difference was detectable in calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones larger than 5 mm. The shape index is a highly promising method that can distinguish calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones with reasonable accuracy.
PURPOSE: We differentiated calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydratekidney stones using micro and clinical computerized tomography images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 22 calcium oxalate monohydrate and 15 calcium oxalate dihydratehumankidney stones were scanned using a commercial micro-computerized tomography scanner with a pixel size of 7 to 23 μm. Under an institutional review board approved protocol, image data on 10 calcium oxalate monohydrate and 9 calcium oxalate dihydrate stones greater than 5 mm were retrieved from a total of 80 patients who underwent clinical dual energy computerized tomography for clinical indications and had stones available for infrared spectroscopic compositional analysis. Micro and clinical computerized tomography images were processed using in-house software, which quantified stone surface morphology with curvature based calculations. A shape index was generated as a quantitative shape metric to differentiate calcium oxalate monohydrate from calcium oxalate dihydrate stones. Statistical tests were used to test the performance of the shape index. RESULTS: On micro-computerized tomography images the shape index of calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones significantly differed (ROC curve AUC 0.92, p <0.0001). At the optimal cutoff sensitivity was 0.93 and specificity was 0.91. On clinical computerized tomography images a significant morphological difference was also detected (p = 0.007). AUC, sensitivity and specificity were 0.90, 1 and 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On micro and clinical computerized tomography images a morphological difference was detectable in calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones larger than 5 mm. The shape index is a highly promising method that can distinguish calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones with reasonable accuracy.
Authors: Kiriaki K Stamatelou; Mildred E Francis; Camille A Jones; Leroy M Nyberg; Gary C Curhan Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Mingliang Qu; Juan C Ramirez-Giraldo; Shuai Leng; James C Williams; Terri J Vrtiska; John C Lieske; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrea Ferrero; Juan C Montoya; Lisa E Vaughan; Alice E Huang; Ian O McKeag; Felicity T Enders; James C Williams; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Prince Singh; Felicity T Enders; Lisa E Vaughan; Eric J Bergstralh; John J Knoedler; Amy E Krambeck; John C Lieske; Andrew D Rule Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-09-06 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Daniel F Leotta; Matthew Bruce; Yak-Nam Wang; John Kucewicz; Tatiana Khokhlova; Keith Chan; Wayne Monsky; Thomas J Matula Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2021-04-24 Impact factor: 3.694