Literature DB >> 24859440

Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard.

B Dustin Pooler1, Meghan G Lubner1, David H Kim1, Eva M Ryckman1, Sri Sivalingam2, Jie Tang3, Stephen Y Nakada2, Guang-Hong Chen4, Perry J Pickhardt5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this prospective trial we compared ultralow dose computerized tomography reconstruction algorithms and routine low dose computerized tomography for detecting urolithiasis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 consenting adults prospectively underwent routine low dose noncontrast computerized tomography immediately followed by an ultralow dose series targeted at a 70% to 90% reduction from the routine low dose technique (sub mSv range). Ultralow dose series were reconstructed with filtered back projection, and adaptive statistical and model based iterative reconstruction techniques. Transverse (axial) and coronal images were sequentially reviewed by 3 relatively inexperienced trainees, including a radiology resident, a urology fellow and an abdominal imaging fellow. Three experienced abdominal radiologists independently reviewed the routine low dose filtered back projection images, which served as the reference standard.
RESULTS: The mean effective dose for the ultralow dose scans was 0.91 mSv (median 0.82), representing a mean ± SD 78% ± 5% decrease compared to the routine low dose. Overall sensitivity and positive predictive value per stone for ultralow dose computerized tomography at a 4 mm threshold was 0.91 and 0.98, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy per patient were 0.87, 1.00, 1.00, 0.94 and 0.96, respectively. At a 4 mm threshold the sensitivity and positive predictive value per stone of the ultralow dose series for filtered back projection, and adaptive statistical and model based iterative reconstruction was 0.89 and 0.96, 0.91 and 0.98, and 0.93 and 1.00, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy per patient at the 4 mm threshold were 0.82, 1.00, 1.00, 0.91 and 0.94 for filtered back projection, 0.85, 1.00, 1.00, 0.93 and 0.95 for adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and 0.94, 1.00, 1.00, 0.97 and 0.98 for model based iterative reconstruction, respectively. Sequential review of coronal images changed the final stone reading in 13% of cases and improved diagnostic confidence in 49%.
CONCLUSIONS: At a 4 mm renal calculus size threshold ultralow dose computerized tomography is accurate for detection when referenced against routine low dose series with dose reduction to below the level of a typical 2-view plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder. Slight differences were seen among the reconstruction algorithms. There was mild improvement with model based iterative reconstruction over filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Coronal images improved detection and diagnostic confidence over axial images alone.
Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  algorithms; emission-computed; kidney; radiation dosage; tomography; urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24859440      PMCID: PMC4570499          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  29 in total

1.  Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT.

Authors:  Deirdre M Coll; Michael J Varanelli; Robert C Smith
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients.

Authors:  Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Eric J Hall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tilo Niemann; Thilo Kollmann; Georg Bongartz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Automated renal stone volume measurement by noncontrast computerized tomography is more reproducible than manual linear size measurement.

Authors:  Sutchin R Patel; Paul Stanton; Nathan Zelinski; Edward J Borman; Myron A Pozniak; Stephen Y Nakada; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Low dose computerized tomography for detection of urolithiasis--its effectiveness in the setting of the urology clinic.

Authors:  Dorit E Zilberman; Matvey Tsivian; Michael E Lipkin; Michael N Ferrandino; Donald P Frush; Erik K Paulson; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go?

Authors:  Naveen M Kulkarni; Raul N Uppot; Brian H Eisner; Dushyant V Sahani
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: A pilot study.

Authors:  Kristina T Flicek; Amy K Hara; Alvin C Silva; Qing Wu; Mary B Peter; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques.

Authors:  Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jiang Hsieh; Paul E Licato; Synho Do; Homer H Pien; Michael A Blake
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Prevalence of urolithiasis in asymptomatic adults: objective determination using low dose noncontrast computerized tomography.

Authors:  Cody J Boyce; Perry J Pickhardt; Edward M Lawrence; David H Kim; Richard J Bruce
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  11 in total

1.  Assessment of sub-milli-sievert abdominal computed tomography with iterative reconstruction techniques of different vendors.

Authors:  Atul Padole; Nisha Sainani; Diego Lira; Ranish Deedar Ali Khawaja; Sarvenaz Pourjabbar; Roberto Lo Gullo; Alexi Otrakji; Mannudeep K Kalra
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-28

2.  Comparison of diagnostic performance between single- and multiphasic contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic computed tomography in patients admitted to the emergency department with abdominal pain: potential radiation dose reduction.

Authors:  Shin Hye Hwang; Je Sung You; Mi Kyong Song; Jin-Young Choi; Myeong-Jin Kim; Yong Eun Chung
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Rapid measurement of the low contrast detectability of CT scanners.

Authors:  Akinyinka Omigbodun; J Y Vaishnav; Scott S Hsieh
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Prospective Evaluation of Reduced Dose Computed Tomography for the Detection of Low-Contrast Liver Lesions: Direct Comparison with Concurrent Standard Dose Imaging.

Authors:  B Dustin Pooler; Meghan G Lubner; David H Kim; Oliver T Chen; Ke Li; Guang-Hong Chen; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A minimum SNR criterion for computed tomography object detection in the projection domain.

Authors:  Scott S Hsieh; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Nathan R Huber; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2022-07-10       Impact factor: 4.506

Review 6.  Lifetime Radiation Exposure in Patients with Recurrent Nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Mohamed A Elkoushy; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Determination of optimal imaging settings for urolithiasis CT using filtered back projection (FBP), statistical iterative reconstruction (IR) and knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR): a physical human phantom study.

Authors:  Se Y Choi; Seung H Ahn; Jae D Choi; Jung H Kim; Byoung-Il Lee; Jeong-In Kim; Sung B Park
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Can conclusions drawn from phantom-based image noise assessments be generalized to in vivo studies for the nonlinear model-based iterative reconstruction method?

Authors:  Daniel Gomez-Cardona; Ke Li; Jiang Hsieh; Meghan G Lubner; Perry J Pickhardt; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them.

Authors:  Simon Hein; Arkadiusz Miernik; Konrad Wilhelm; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Thomas R W Herrmann; Jens J Rassweiler; Martin Schoenthaler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Understanding, justifying, and optimizing radiation exposure for CT imaging in nephrourology.

Authors:  Andrea Ferrero; Naoki Takahashi; Terri J Vrtiska; Amy E Krambeck; John C Lieske; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.