OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to show the feasibility of distinguishing between uric acid (UA) and non-UA renal stones using two consecutive spatially registered low- and high-energy scans acquired on a conventional CT system. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 33 patients undergoing clinically indicated dual-source dual-energy CT examinations to differentiate UA from non-UA renal stones were enrolled in this study. Immediately after patients underwent clinically indicated dual-source dual-energy CT, two consecutive scans (one at 80 kV and one at 140 kV) were obtained on a conventional CT scanner over the region limited to the stones identified on the dual-source scans. After 3D deformable registration of the 80- and 140-kV images, UA and non-UA stones were identified using commercial software. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of stone classification were calculated using the dual-source results as the reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 469 stones were identified in the dual-source examinations (26 UA and 443 non-UA stones). The average in-plane stone diameter was 4.4 ± 2.5 (SD) mm (range, 2.0-18.9 mm). The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for identifying UA stones were 73.1%, 90.1%, and 89.1%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 94.7%, 96.9%, and 96.8% for stones 3 mm or larger (n = 341 [19 UA and 322 non-UA]). CONCLUSION: Accurate differentiation of UA from non-UA renal stones is feasible using two consecutively acquired and spatially registered conventional CT scans.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to show the feasibility of distinguishing between uric acid (UA) and non-UArenal stones using two consecutive spatially registered low- and high-energy scans acquired on a conventional CT system. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 33 patients undergoing clinically indicated dual-source dual-energy CT examinations to differentiate UA from non-UArenal stones were enrolled in this study. Immediately after patients underwent clinically indicated dual-source dual-energy CT, two consecutive scans (one at 80 kV and one at 140 kV) were obtained on a conventional CT scanner over the region limited to the stones identified on the dual-source scans. After 3D deformable registration of the 80- and 140-kV images, UA and non-UA stones were identified using commercial software. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of stone classification were calculated using the dual-source results as the reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 469 stones were identified in the dual-source examinations (26 UA and 443 non-UA stones). The average in-plane stone diameter was 4.4 ± 2.5 (SD) mm (range, 2.0-18.9 mm). The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for identifying UA stones were 73.1%, 90.1%, and 89.1%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 94.7%, 96.9%, and 96.8% for stones 3 mm or larger (n = 341 [19 UA and 322 non-UA]). CONCLUSION: Accurate differentiation of UA from non-UArenal stones is feasible using two consecutively acquired and spatially registered conventional CT scans.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT; deformable registration; dual-energy CT; renal stone; stone composition
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: Naveen M Kulkarni; Brian H Eisner; Daniella F Pinho; Mukta C Joshi; Avinash R Kambadakone; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Gabrielle C Colleran; Michael J Callahan; Harriet J Paltiel; Caleb P Nelson; Bartley G Cilento; Michelle A Baum; Jeanne S Chow Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-11-04
Authors: George Noid; Justin Zhu; An Tai; Nilesh Mistry; Diane Schott; Douglas Prah; Eric Paulson; Christopher Schultz; X Allen Li Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Shuai Leng; Alice Huang; Juan Montoya Cardona; Xinhui Duan; James C Williams; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Anushri Parakh; Chansik An; Simon Lennartz; Prabhakar Rajiah; Benjamin M Yeh; Frank J Simeone; Dushyant V Sahani; Avinash R Kambadakone Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Jessie Y Huang; Michael J Lawless; Charles K Matrosic; Lianna D Di Maso; Jessica R Miller Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 2.102