OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this phantom study was to determine the utility of a third-generation dual-source CT scanner with increased dual-energy spectral separation in differentiating urinary stone composition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven urinary stones from humans were scanned in 35-, 40-, 45-, and 50-cm wide anthropomorphic phantoms with a third-generation dual-source scanner (system A) with a high-energy beam of 150 kV plus 0.6-mm tin filtration (Sn). The low-energy data were acquired at 70, 80, 90, and 100 kV. A second-generation dual-source scanner (system B) was used to acquire data at 140 kV plus 0.4-mm Sn for the high-energy and 80 or 100 kV for the low-energy images. Volume CT dose index was matched for a given phantom size. CT number ratios were calculated and used to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid stones and oxalate from apatite stones in an ROC analysis. RESULTS: The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve for uric acid versus non-uric acid stones increased for large phantoms. For example, for imaging of the 45-cm wide phantom with system A at the 100- and 150-kV Sn low- and high-energy combination, the AUC was 0.99, whereas for system B at the 100- and 140-kV Sn combination, the AUC was 0.86. At each phantom size and for all energy combinations, the AUC values for oxalate versus apatite stones were higher for system A than they were for any energy combination for system B. CONCLUSION: Compared with use of second-generation dual-source CT, use of third-generation dual-source CT at the energy combination of 100 and 150 kV Sn improved classification of urinary stones across a wide range of phantom sizes and increased the ability to differentiate oxalate from apatite stones.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this phantom study was to determine the utility of a third-generation dual-source CT scanner with increased dual-energy spectral separation in differentiating urinary stone composition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven urinary stones from humans were scanned in 35-, 40-, 45-, and 50-cm wide anthropomorphic phantoms with a third-generation dual-source scanner (system A) with a high-energy beam of 150 kV plus 0.6-mm tin filtration (Sn). The low-energy data were acquired at 70, 80, 90, and 100 kV. A second-generation dual-source scanner (system B) was used to acquire data at 140 kV plus 0.4-mm Sn for the high-energy and 80 or 100 kV for the low-energy images. Volume CT dose index was matched for a given phantom size. CT number ratios were calculated and used to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid stones and oxalate from apatite stones in an ROC analysis. RESULTS: The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve for uric acid versus non-uric acid stones increased for large phantoms. For example, for imaging of the 45-cm wide phantom with system A at the 100- and 150-kV Sn low- and high-energy combination, the AUC was 0.99, whereas for system B at the 100- and 140-kV Sn combination, the AUC was 0.86. At each phantom size and for all energy combinations, the AUC values for oxalate versus apatite stones were higher for system A than they were for any energy combination for system B. CONCLUSION: Compared with use of second-generation dual-source CT, use of third-generation dual-source CT at the energy combination of 100 and 150 kV Sn improved classification of urinary stones across a wide range of phantom sizes and increased the ability to differentiate oxalate from apatite stones.
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: 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: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Markus Bader; Michael Staehler; Nicolas Haseke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian G Stief; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Daniel T Boll; Neil A Patil; Erik K Paulson; Elmar M Merkle; W Neal Simmons; Sean A Pierre; Glenn M Preminger Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Gutjahr; C Polster; A Henning; S Kappler; S Leng; C H McCollough; M U Sedlmair; B Schmidt; B Krauss; T G Flohr Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2017-03
Authors: André Euler; Markus M Obmann; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Achille Mileto; Caroline Zaehringer; Anna L Falkowski; David J Winkel; Daniele Marin; Bram Stieltjes; Bernhard Krauss; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A Ferrero; R Gutjahr; A Henning; S Kappler; A Halaweish; D Abdurakhimova; Z Peterson; J Montoya; S Leng; C McCollough Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2017-02-11