Dongik Cha1, Chan Kyo Kim1,2, Jung Jae Park1, Byung Kwan Park1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Medical Device Management and Research, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of dual-energy CT (DECT) for differentiating between solid and benign cystic lesions presenting as hyperdense renal lesions incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT. METHODS: 90 hyperdense renal lesions incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT were evaluated with follow-up DECT. DECT protocols included true non-contrast (TNC), DE corticomedullary and DE late nephrographic phase imaging. The CT numbers of hyperdense renal lesions were calculated on linearly blended and iodine overlay (IO) images, and the results were compared. RESULTS: In total, 47 benign cystic and 43 solid renal lesions were analyzed. For differentiating between solid and benign cystic lesions on the two phases, the specificity and accuracy of all lesions and lesions <1.5 cm were statistically lower in IO images than in linearly blended images (p < 0.05), while those for lesions ≥1.5 cm were not statistically different between them (p > 0.05). For all types of lesions ≥1.5 cm, the CT numbers between linearly blended and IO images and between TNC and virtual non-contrast images were not statistically different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: DECT may be useful for differentiating between solid and benign cystic lesions presenting as hyperdense renal lesions incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT, particularly with the size ≥1.5 cm. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DECT may be used to characterize hyperdense renal lesions ≥1.5 cm incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT, without the use of TNC images.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of dual-energy CT (DECT) for differentiating between solid and benign cystic lesions presenting as hyperdense renal lesions incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT. METHODS: 90 hyperdense renal lesions incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT were evaluated with follow-up DECT. DECT protocols included true non-contrast (TNC), DE corticomedullary and DE late nephrographic phase imaging. The CT numbers of hyperdense renal lesions were calculated on linearly blended and iodine overlay (IO) images, and the results were compared. RESULTS: In total, 47 benign cystic and 43 solid renal lesions were analyzed. For differentiating between solid and benign cystic lesions on the two phases, the specificity and accuracy of all lesions and lesions <1.5 cm were statistically lower in IO images than in linearly blended images (p < 0.05), while those for lesions ≥1.5 cm were not statistically different between them (p > 0.05). For all types of lesions ≥1.5 cm, the CT numbers between linearly blended and IO images and between TNC and virtual non-contrast images were not statistically different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: DECT may be useful for differentiating between solid and benign cystic lesions presenting as hyperdense renal lesions incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT, particularly with the size ≥1.5 cm. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DECT may be used to characterize hyperdense renal lesions ≥1.5 cm incidentally detected on single-phase post-contrast CT, without the use of TNC images.
Authors: C L Brown; R P Hartman; O P Dzyubak; N Takahashi; A Kawashima; C H McCollough; M R Bruesewitz; A M Primak; J G Fletcher Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Alec J Megibow; Benjamin A Cohen; Ramya Srinivasan; Danny Kim; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Macari Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anno Graser; Christoph R Becker; Michael Staehler; Dirk A Clevert; Michael Macari; Niko Arndt; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wieland Sommer; Christian Stief; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Michael Suh; Fergus V Coakley; Aliya Qayyum; Benjamin M Yeh; Richard S Breiman; Ying Lu Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-06-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ali Pourvaziri; Amirkasra Mojtahed; Peter F Hahn; Michael S Gee; Avinash Kambadakone; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Rivka Kessner; Nils Große Hokamp; Les Ciancibello; Nikhil Ramaiya; Karin A Herrmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 3.039