OBJECTIVE: This study will evaluate the accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) in characterizing urinary tract stone composition on patients presenting to a UK hospital with renal colic. The study will also assess the additional radiation dose burden of DECT over standard protocol. METHODS: Data from 106 DECTs between October 2011 and October 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were imaged using a Toshiba Aquilion ONE™ CT scanner (Toshiba Medical Systems, Otawara-shi, Japan). All patients received a low-dose non-contrast CT of the abdomen and pelvis prior to stone-targeted DECT at 80 and 135 kVp and 40-mm field of view. Radiation dose output was evaluated using dose-length product (DLP). 19 stones were recovered and their compositions were analyzed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. RESULTS: 137 stones were characterized. Mean stone diameter was 8.8 mm (range 3-48 mm). There was an 18.7% increase in mean DLP for DECT over standard CT protocol (319.4 vs 269.1 mGy cm; p < 0.001). Infrared spectroscopy analysis of 19 recovered stones identified 15 stones as calcium, 2 stones as cystine and 2 stones as mixed composition. Dual energy correctly predicted 11 (78.6%) of 14 calcium stones, 2 (100%) of 2 mixed composition stones and 0 (0%) of 2 cystine stones, resulting in a fair agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.374, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: DECT is able to determine the composition of urinary tract stones with fair accuracy. Its utility is offset by a small but significant supplementary radiation exposure. Advances in knowledge: DECT can provide urological surgeons with useful diagnostic stone material information prior to planning optimal management of stone disease.
OBJECTIVE: This study will evaluate the accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) in characterizing urinary tract stone composition on patients presenting to a UK hospital with renal colic. The study will also assess the additional radiation dose burden of DECT over standard protocol. METHODS: Data from 106 DECTs between October 2011 and October 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were imaged using a Toshiba Aquilion ONE™ CT scanner (Toshiba Medical Systems, Otawara-shi, Japan). All patients received a low-dose non-contrast CT of the abdomen and pelvis prior to stone-targeted DECT at 80 and 135 kVp and 40-mm field of view. Radiation dose output was evaluated using dose-length product (DLP). 19 stones were recovered and their compositions were analyzed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. RESULTS: 137 stones were characterized. Mean stone diameter was 8.8 mm (range 3-48 mm). There was an 18.7% increase in mean DLP for DECT over standard CT protocol (319.4 vs 269.1 mGy cm; p < 0.001). Infrared spectroscopy analysis of 19 recovered stones identified 15 stones as calcium, 2 stones as cystine and 2 stones as mixed composition. Dual energy correctly predicted 11 (78.6%) of 14 calcium stones, 2 (100%) of 2 mixed composition stones and 0 (0%) of 2 cystine stones, resulting in a fair agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.374, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: DECT is able to determine the composition of urinary tract stones with fair accuracy. Its utility is offset by a small but significant supplementary radiation exposure. Advances in knowledge: DECT can provide urological surgeons with useful diagnostic stone material information prior to planning optimal management of stone disease.
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Dianna D Cody; John M Boone; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Romain Grosjean; Michel Daudon; Mario F Chammas; Michel Claudon; Pascal Eschwege; Jacques Felblinger; Jacques Hubert Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Adam Lukasiewicz; Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield; Laura Coombs; Monica Ghita; Jeffrey Weinreb; Gowthaman Gunabushanam; Christopher L Moore Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Thomas; O Patschan; D Ketelsen; I Tsiflikas; A Reimann; H Brodoefel; M Buchgeister; U Nagele; A Stenzl; C Claussen; A Kopp; M Heuschmid; H-P Schlemmer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ioannis Vlahos; Megan C Jacobsen; Myrna C Godoy; Konstantinos Stefanidis; Rick R Layman Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 3.039
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: C Seitz; T Bach; M Bader; W Berg; T Knoll; A Neisius; C Netsch; M Nothacker; S Schmidt; M Schönthaler; R Siener; R Stein; M Straub; W Strohmaier; C Türk; B Volkmer Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Stephanie Kulpe; Martin Dierolf; Benedikt Günther; Madleen Busse; Klaus Achterhold; Bernhard Gleich; Julia Herzen; Ernst Rummeny; Franz Pfeiffer; Daniela Pfeiffer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 4.379