Egemen Çifçi1, Gökçen Çoban2, Tufan Çiçek3, Umut Gönülalan3. 1. Department of Radiology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Hocacihan mah. Saray cad., No:1 Selcuklu, Konya, Turkey, 42080. drecifci@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Hocacihan mah. Saray cad., No:1 Selcuklu, Konya, Turkey, 42080. 3. Department of Urology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the inter-observer variability and the accuracy of magnetic resonance urography (MRU) using a thin sectional balanced-turbo field echo (B-TFE) sequence for detecting ureteral calculi and to determine the effect of additional factors (size, density and location of the calculus) on the sensitivity and specificity of the MRU. MATERIALS & METHODS: MRU and CT images were evaluated independently by two radiologists according to presence, density and localization of calculi. The degrees of inter-rater agreement for categorical items were evaluated by the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: According to the 1st and 2nd observers, the sensitivity of MRU was 65.9 %, 71.8 % and the specificity of MRU was 95.9 %, 100 %, respectively. Inter-observer agreement was 84.6 % for stone detection. The larger size had a better effect on detectability (p < 0.05). Also, the higher density had a better impact on detectability (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study has shown that B-TFE MRU was useful to detect ureteral calculi. However, B-TFE MRU has low sensitivity and high specificity in comparison with CT images. MRU is a reasonable alternative imaging technique for follow-up periods of selective groups like patients with large urinary stones, children or pregnant patients when ionizing radiation is undesirable. KEY POINTS: • According to 1st and 2nd observers, sensitivity of MRU was 65.9 %, 71.8 %, respectively. • According to 1st and 2nd observers, MRU specificity was 95.9 %, 100 %, respectively. • Interobserver agreement was found to be over 84 % for stone detection. • B-TFE sequence provides calculus follow-up without radiation. • Larger calculi and more dense calculi individually have the better effect on detectability.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the inter-observer variability and the accuracy of magnetic resonance urography (MRU) using a thin sectional balanced-turbo field echo (B-TFE) sequence for detecting ureteral calculi and to determine the effect of additional factors (size, density and location of the calculus) on the sensitivity and specificity of the MRU. MATERIALS & METHODS: MRU and CT images were evaluated independently by two radiologists according to presence, density and localization of calculi. The degrees of inter-rater agreement for categorical items were evaluated by the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: According to the 1st and 2nd observers, the sensitivity of MRU was 65.9 %, 71.8 % and the specificity of MRU was 95.9 %, 100 %, respectively. Inter-observer agreement was 84.6 % for stone detection. The larger size had a better effect on detectability (p < 0.05). Also, the higher density had a better impact on detectability (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study has shown that B-TFE MRU was useful to detect ureteral calculi. However, B-TFE MRU has low sensitivity and high specificity in comparison with CT images. MRU is a reasonable alternative imaging technique for follow-up periods of selective groups like patients with large urinary stones, children or pregnant patients when ionizing radiation is undesirable. KEY POINTS: • According to 1st and 2nd observers, sensitivity of MRU was 65.9 %, 71.8 %, respectively. • According to 1st and 2nd observers, MRU specificity was 95.9 %, 100 %, respectively. • Interobserver agreement was found to be over 84 % for stone detection. • B-TFE sequence provides calculus follow-up without radiation. • Larger calculi and more dense calculi individually have the better effect on detectability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Balanced-turbo field echo; Diagnosis; Flank pain; Magnetic resonance urography; Ureteral calculus
Authors: Govind B Chavhan; Paul S Babyn; Bhavin G Jankharia; Hai-Ling M Cheng; Manohar M Shroff Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: O F Miller; S K Rineer; S R Reichard; R G Buckley; M S Donovan; I R Graham; W B Goff; C J Kane Journal: Urology Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sonja Kinner; Alexander Dechêne; Susanne C Ladd; Thomas Zöpf; Evelin Maldonado de Dechêne; Guido Gerken; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Simon Veldhoen; Azien Laqmani; Thorsten Derlin; Murat Karul; Diego Hammerle; Jan-Hendrik Buhk; Susanne Sehner; Hans D Nagel; Felix Chun; Gerhard Adam; Marc Regier Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: J Tobias Nagurney; David F M Brown; Yuchiao Chang; Swati Sane; Andrew C Wang; Justin B Weiner Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Gene O Huang; Steven R Engebretsen; Jason C Smith; Caroline L Wallner; David J Culpepper; Jonathan D Creech; Caleb C Ng; Andrew T Mai; Christopher S Chung; Gaudencio Olgin; Don C Arnold; D Duane Baldwin Journal: Urology Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Michael N Ferrandino; Aditya Bagrodia; Sean A Pierre; Charles D Scales; Edward Rampersaud; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-12-18 Impact factor: 7.450