CONTEXT: Nephrocalcinosis is a complication of hypoparathyroidism and other metabolic disorders. Imaging modalities include ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT). Few studies have compared these modalities, and standard clinical practice is not defined. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the preferred method for assessing nephrocalcinosis. DESIGN: The design of the study was a retrospective, blinded analysis. SETTING: The study was conducted at a clinical research center. PATIENTS: Twenty-two hypoparathyroid subjects and 7 controls participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Contemporaneous renal US and CT images were reviewed in triplicate by 4 blinded radiologists. Nephrocalcinosis was classified using a 0-3 scale with 0 meaning no nephrocalcinosis and 3 meaning severe nephrocalcinosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraobserver, interobserver, and interdevice agreements were measured. RESULTS: Intraobserver agreement was high, with an overall weighted kappa of 0.83 for CT and 0.89 for US. Interobserver agreement was similar between modalities, with kappas of 0.74 for US and 0.70 for CT. Only moderate agreement was found between US and CT scores, with an intermodality kappa of 0.47 and 60% concordance. Of discordant pairs, 81% had higher US scores and only 19% had higher CT scores. Of nephrocalcinosis seen on US and not CT, 45%, 46%, and 9% were grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Overall, US scores were higher than CT with a cumulative odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 5.97 (2.60, 13.75) (P < .01). In controls, 100% of US ratings were 0, and 95% of CT ratings were 0. CONCLUSIONS: US is superior to CT for assessment of mild to moderate nephrocalcinosis in patients with hypoparathyroidism. This finding, in combination with its low cost, lack of radiation, and portability, defines US as the preferred modality for assessment of nephrocalcinosis.
CONTEXT: Nephrocalcinosis is a complication of hypoparathyroidism and other metabolic disorders. Imaging modalities include ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT). Few studies have compared these modalities, and standard clinical practice is not defined. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the preferred method for assessing nephrocalcinosis. DESIGN: The design of the study was a retrospective, blinded analysis. SETTING: The study was conducted at a clinical research center. PATIENTS: Twenty-two hypoparathyroid subjects and 7 controls participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Contemporaneous renal US and CT images were reviewed in triplicate by 4 blinded radiologists. Nephrocalcinosis was classified using a 0-3 scale with 0 meaning no nephrocalcinosis and 3 meaning severe nephrocalcinosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraobserver, interobserver, and interdevice agreements were measured. RESULTS: Intraobserver agreement was high, with an overall weighted kappa of 0.83 for CT and 0.89 for US. Interobserver agreement was similar between modalities, with kappas of 0.74 for US and 0.70 for CT. Only moderate agreement was found between US and CT scores, with an intermodality kappa of 0.47 and 60% concordance. Of discordant pairs, 81% had higher US scores and only 19% had higher CT scores. Of nephrocalcinosis seen on US and not CT, 45%, 46%, and 9% were grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Overall, US scores were higher than CT with a cumulative odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 5.97 (2.60, 13.75) (P < .01). In controls, 100% of US ratings were 0, and 95% of CT ratings were 0. CONCLUSIONS: US is superior to CT for assessment of mild to moderate nephrocalcinosis in patients with hypoparathyroidism. This finding, in combination with its low cost, lack of radiation, and portability, defines US as the preferred modality for assessment of nephrocalcinosis.
Authors: Y G Kim; B Kim; M K Kim; S J Chung; H J Han; J A Ryu; Y H Lee; K B Lee; J Y Lee; W Huh; H Y Oh Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: A Lienhardt; M Bai; J P Lagarde; M Rigaud; Z Zhang; Y Jiang; M L Kottler; E M Brown; M Garabédian Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Karen K Winer; Andrea Kelly; Alicia Johns; Bo Zhang; Karen Dowdy; Lauren Kim; James C Reynolds; Paul S Albert; Gordon B Cutler Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: John P Bilezikian; Maria Luisa Brandi; Natalie E Cusano; Michael Mannstadt; Lars Rejnmark; René Rizzoli; Mishaela R Rubin; Karen K Winer; Uri A Liberman; John T Potts Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Sara H Rahman; Georgios Z Papadakis; Margaret F Keil; Fabio R Faucz; Maya B Lodish; Constantine A Stratakis Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Aliya A Khan; Christian A Koch; Stan Van Uum; Jean Patrice Baillargeon; Jens Bollerslev; Maria Luisa Brandi; Claudio Marcocci; Lars Rejnmark; Rene Rizzoli; M Zakarea Shrayyef; Rajesh Thakker; Bulent O Yildiz; Bart Clarke Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Guido de Paula Colares Neto; Fernando Ide Yamauchi; Ronaldo Hueb Baroni; Marco de Andrade Bianchi; Andrea Cavalanti Gomes; Maria Cristina Chammas; Regina Matsunaga Martin Journal: J Endocr Soc Date: 2019-03-25
Authors: Xiaojing Tang; Eric J Bergstralh; Ramila A Mehta; Terri J Vrtiska; Dawn S Milliner; John C Lieske Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 10.612