PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of iodine quantification and standard enhancement measurements in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study conducted from data found in institutional patient databases and archives. Seventy-two renal masses were characterised as enhancing or nonenhancing using standard enhancement measurements (in HU) and iodine quantification (in mg/ml). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were calculated from χ (2) tests of contingency with histopathology or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Difference in accuracy was assessed by means of McNemar analysis. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy for standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were 77.7 %, 100 %, 100 %, 81.8 %, 89 % and 100 %, 94.4 %, 94.7, 100 % and 97 %, respectively. The McNemar analysis showed that the accuracy of iodine quantification was significantly better (P < 0.001) than that of standard enhancement measurements. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard enhancement measurements, whole-tumour iodine quantification is more accurate in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. KEY POINTS: • Enhancement of renal lesions is important when differentiating benign from malignant tumours. • Dual-energy CT offers measurement of iodine uptake rather than mere enhancement values. • Whole-tumour iodine quantification seems more accurate than standard CT enhancement measurements.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of iodine quantification and standard enhancement measurements in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study conducted from data found in institutional patient databases and archives. Seventy-two renal masses were characterised as enhancing or nonenhancing using standard enhancement measurements (in HU) and iodine quantification (in mg/ml). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were calculated from χ (2) tests of contingency with histopathology or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Difference in accuracy was assessed by means of McNemar analysis. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy for standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were 77.7 %, 100 %, 100 %, 81.8 %, 89 % and 100 %, 94.4 %, 94.7, 100 % and 97 %, respectively. The McNemar analysis showed that the accuracy of iodine quantification was significantly better (P < 0.001) than that of standard enhancement measurements. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard enhancement measurements, whole-tumouriodine quantification is more accurate in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. KEY POINTS: • Enhancement of renal lesions is important when differentiating benign from malignant tumours. • Dual-energy CT offers measurement of iodine uptake rather than mere enhancement values. • Whole-tumouriodine quantification seems more accurate than standard CT enhancement measurements.
Authors: Masahiro Jinzaki; Jeffrey D McTavish; Kelly H Zou; Philip F Judy; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Joan P Heneghan; Audrey L Spielmann; Douglas H Sheafor; Mark A Kliewer; David M DeLong; Rendon C Nelson Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Anno Graser; Christoph R Becker; Michael Staehler; Dirk A Clevert; Michael Macari; Niko Arndt; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wieland Sommer; Christian Stief; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Martin Petersilka; Herbert Bruder; Bernhard Krauss; Karl Stierstorfer; Thomas G Flohr Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Benjamin M Yeh; Paul F FitzGerald; Peter M Edic; Jack W Lambert; Robert E Colborn; Michael E Marino; Paul M Evans; Jeannette C Roberts; Zhen J Wang; Margaret J Wong; Peter J Bonitatibus Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 15.470