Maria A Jepperson1, El-Sayed H Ibrahim2, Abby Taylor3, Joseph G Cernigliaro1, William E Haley2, David D Thiel4. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 3. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 4. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. Electronic address: thiel.david@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare speed and accuracy for determining urinary calculi composition between dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements of calculi by a set of reviewers at varying levels of training and practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with known stone composition were randomly selected. Fourteen reviewers of varying levels of practice interpreted DECT and HU images from the selected patients to predict stone composition in 2 sessions (day 1: tutorial or flow sheet available for image interpretation and day 2: tutorial or flow sheet not available). Reviewers recorded HU values, stone color, and predicted stone composition as they were timed. Accuracy of image interpretation, determination of calculi composition, and interpretation time were compared. RESULTS: DECT accuracy: image interpretation 100% (day 1) and 94% (day 2); predicted stone composition: 100% (day 1) and 73% (day 2). Mean interpretation time was the same for both days, 21 seconds per study (range, 11-40 seconds). HU accuracy: image interpretation 97% (day 1) and 91% (day 2); predicted stone composition was 45% accurate on both days. Mean interpretation time was 53 seconds per study (range, 28-79 seconds) and 41 seconds per study (range, 19-71 seconds) on days 1 and 2, respectively. Overall accuracy of determination of stone composition and interpretation time for DECT were essentially double those of the HU images (87% vs 45% and 21 vs 47 seconds, respectively). Reviewer's experience level did not affect accuracy or speed. CONCLUSION: DECT is easier to learn, faster to interpret, and more accurate than HU in determining urinary calculi composition for physicians at various levels of training and practice.
OBJECTIVE: To compare speed and accuracy for determining urinary calculi composition between dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements of calculi by a set of reviewers at varying levels of training and practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with known stone composition were randomly selected. Fourteen reviewers of varying levels of practice interpreted DECT and HU images from the selected patients to predict stone composition in 2 sessions (day 1: tutorial or flow sheet available for image interpretation and day 2: tutorial or flow sheet not available). Reviewers recorded HU values, stone color, and predicted stone composition as they were timed. Accuracy of image interpretation, determination of calculi composition, and interpretation time were compared. RESULTS: DECT accuracy: image interpretation 100% (day 1) and 94% (day 2); predicted stone composition: 100% (day 1) and 73% (day 2). Mean interpretation time was the same for both days, 21 seconds per study (range, 11-40 seconds). HU accuracy: image interpretation 97% (day 1) and 91% (day 2); predicted stone composition was 45% accurate on both days. Mean interpretation time was 53 seconds per study (range, 28-79 seconds) and 41 seconds per study (range, 19-71 seconds) on days 1 and 2, respectively. Overall accuracy of determination of stone composition and interpretation time for DECT were essentially double those of the HU images (87% vs 45% and 21 vs 47 seconds, respectively). Reviewer's experience level did not affect accuracy or speed. CONCLUSION: DECT is easier to learn, faster to interpret, and more accurate than HU in determining urinary calculi composition for physicians at various levels of training and practice.
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: Michael Toepker; Franklin Kuehas; Daniela Kienzl; Ralf Herwig; Elisa Spazierer; Bernhard Krauss; Michael Weber; Christian Seitz; Helmut Ringl Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 7.450