F Lombardo1, M Bonatti2, G A Zamboni3, G Avesani2, N Oberhofer4, M Bonelli4, A Pycha5, R Pozzi Mucelli3, G Bonatti2. 1. Department of Radiology, Ospedale Centrale di Bolzano, Via L. Boehler 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy. Electronic address: fabio.lombardo@me.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Ospedale Centrale di Bolzano, Via L. Boehler 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro 10, 37134 Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Ospedale Centrale di Bolzano, Via L. Boehler 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Ospedale Centrale di Bolzano, Via L. Boehler 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy.
Abstract
AIM: To differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid renal stones based on their spectral attenuation values. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was approved by the institutional review board and the need for informed consent was waived. Thirty-three consecutive patients (21 men, 12 women; mean age 55 years) with symptomatic urolithiasis underwent dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) using a second-generation dual-source CT system. Stone composition was assessed by means of chemical analysis after extraction or spontaneous expulsion. The composition of one stone was considered to represent all remaining stones in patients presenting with more than one stone. Image-domain virtual monoenergetic images were generated from the dual-energy datasets. One radiologist evaluated stone attenuation values from 40 to 190 keV; attenuation curves were created and 40/190 keV attenuation ratios calculated. Qualitative evaluation of the spectral attenuation curves was also performed. Imaging findings were compared with laboratory results. RESULTS: Sixty-two stones were considered in 33 patients (mean diameter 6.5 mm). Fifteen of the 62 stones were mainly composed of uric acid and 47/62 of cysteine or calcium oxalates/phosphates. Forty to 190 keV attenuation ratios were significantly lower for uric acid stones (mean 0.87±0.3) than for non-uric acid stones (mean 3.80±0.6; p<0.0001). Accuracy was 100% with a cut-off value of 1.76. Qualitative analysis of spectral attenuation curves showed unique shapes for uric acid and non-uric acid stones. CONCLUSIONS: Spectral CT quantitatively and qualitatively differentiates uric acid from non-uric acid stones.
AIM: To differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid renal stones based on their spectral attenuation values. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was approved by the institutional review board and the need for informed consent was waived. Thirty-three consecutive patients (21 men, 12 women; mean age 55 years) with symptomatic urolithiasis underwent dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) using a second-generation dual-source CT system. Stone composition was assessed by means of chemical analysis after extraction or spontaneous expulsion. The composition of one stone was considered to represent all remaining stones in patients presenting with more than one stone. Image-domain virtual monoenergetic images were generated from the dual-energy datasets. One radiologist evaluated stone attenuation values from 40 to 190 keV; attenuation curves were created and 40/190 keV attenuation ratios calculated. Qualitative evaluation of the spectral attenuation curves was also performed. Imaging findings were compared with laboratory results. RESULTS: Sixty-two stones were considered in 33 patients (mean diameter 6.5 mm). Fifteen of the 62 stones were mainly composed of uric acid and 47/62 of cysteine or calcium oxalates/phosphates. Forty to 190 keV attenuation ratios were significantly lower for uric acid stones (mean 0.87±0.3) than for non-uric acid stones (mean 3.80±0.6; p<0.0001). Accuracy was 100% with a cut-off value of 1.76. Qualitative analysis of spectral attenuation curves showed unique shapes for uric acid and non-uric acid stones. CONCLUSIONS: Spectral CT quantitatively and qualitatively differentiates uric acid from non-uric acid stones.
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: 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: Matthias Pumberger; Michael Fuchs; Nils Engelhard; Kay Geert Hermann; Michael Putzier; Marcus R Makowski; Bernd Hamm; Torsten Diekhoff Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315