A Spek1, F Strittmatter2, A Graser3, P Kufer2, C Stief2, M Staehler2. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Munich, Germany. Annabel.spek@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) in the detection of the chemical composition of urinary calculi in correlation with infrared spectroscopic stone analysis. METHODS: We reviewed the CT scans of 255 patients who underwent DECT due to a clinical suspicion of urolithiasis. Out of this group, we included 64 patients with clinically symptomatic urolithiasis requiring stone removal. After surgical removal of the stone by ureterorenoscopy, chemical composition was analyzed with infrared spectroscopy. We correlated DECT stone characterization results with chemical stone composition based on dual-energy indices (DEI). A total of 213 renal and ureteral stones could be removed and chemically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 213 calculi were evaluated. Thirty eight out of sixty four (59 %) patients had >1 stone. DECT was used to differentiate stones by using DEI. Stones harboring calcium (CA) were color-coded in blue, while stones containing uric acid (UA) were colored red. Median DEI in UA-containing stones were 0.001. Non-UA-containing stones had a DEI between 0.073 for pure CA stones and 0.077 containing CA and other substances (p = 0.001; p = 0.03, respectively). Sensitivity of DECT was 98.4 % for differentiation of UA from non-UA-containing calculi. Specificity was 98.1 %. Mean effective radiation dose of DECT was 4.18 mSv (0.44-14.27 mSv), thus comparable to conventional CT scans of the abdomen. Conventional measurement of Hounsfield units did not correlate with stone composition. CONCLUSION: DECT with image post-processing reliably discriminates UA-containing calculi from all other stones, but the study offered limitations. Discrimination within the non-UA stones cannot be reliably achieved but is clinically insignificant.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) in the detection of the chemical composition of urinary calculi in correlation with infrared spectroscopic stone analysis. METHODS: We reviewed the CT scans of 255 patients who underwent DECT due to a clinical suspicion of urolithiasis. Out of this group, we included 64 patients with clinically symptomatic urolithiasis requiring stone removal. After surgical removal of the stone by ureterorenoscopy, chemical composition was analyzed with infrared spectroscopy. We correlated DECT stone characterization results with chemical stone composition based on dual-energy indices (DEI). A total of 213 renal and ureteral stones could be removed and chemically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 213 calculi were evaluated. Thirty eight out of sixty four (59 %) patients had >1 stone. DECT was used to differentiate stones by using DEI. Stones harboring calcium (CA) were color-coded in blue, while stones containing uric acid (UA) were colored red. Median DEI in UA-containing stones were 0.001. Non-UA-containing stones had a DEI between 0.073 for pure CA stones and 0.077 containing CA and other substances (p = 0.001; p = 0.03, respectively). Sensitivity of DECT was 98.4 % for differentiation of UA from non-UA-containing calculi. Specificity was 98.1 %. Mean effective radiation dose of DECT was 4.18 mSv (0.44-14.27 mSv), thus comparable to conventional CT scans of the abdomen. Conventional measurement of Hounsfield units did not correlate with stone composition. CONCLUSION: DECT with image post-processing reliably discriminates UA-containing calculi from all other stones, but the study offered limitations. Discrimination within the non-UA stones cannot be reliably achieved but is clinically insignificant.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemical composition; Dual-energy CT; Uric acid stones; Urolithiasis
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Bernhard Krauss; Martin Sedlmair; Michael Grasruck; Herbert Bruder; Dominik Morhard; Christian Fink; Sabine Weckbach; Miriam Lenhard; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael N Ferrandino; Sean A Pierre; Walter Neal Simmons; Erik K Paulson; David M Albala; Glenn M Preminger Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Georg Apfaltrer; Anja Dutschke; Pascal A T Baltzer; Christian Schestak; Mehmet Özsoy; Christian Seitz; Julian Veser; Elisabeth Petter; Thomas H Helbich; Helmut Ringl; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Tim Nestler; Kai Nestler; Andreas Neisius; Hendrik Isbarn; Christopher Netsch; Stephan Waldeck; Hans U Schmelz; Christian Ruf Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Elisabeth Appel; Christoph Thomas; Andrea Steuwe; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Olga R Brook; Joel Aissa; Jörg Hennenlotter; Gerald Antoch; Johannes Boos Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ayele H Negussie; Quirina M B de Ruiter; Hugh Britton; Danielle R Donahue; Quentin Boffi; Young-Seung Kim; William F Pritchard; Chrit Moonen; Gert Storm; Andrew L Lewis; Bradford J Wood Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Jong Soo Lee; Kang Su Cho; Seung Hwan Lee; Young Eun Yoon; Dong Hyuk Kang; Won Sik Jeong; Hae Do Jung; Jong Kyou Kwon; Joo Yong Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240