Dominik Nakhostin1, Thomas Sartoretti2, Matthias Eberhard2, Bernhard Krauss3, Daniel Müller4, Hatem Alkadhi2, André Euler2. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. dominik.nakhostin@usz.ch. 2. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, An der Lände 1, 91301, Forchheim, Germany. 4. Institute of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare noise texture and accuracy to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid urinary stones among four different single-source and dual-source DECT approaches in an ex vivo phantom study. METHODS: Thirty-two urinary stones embedded in gelatin were mounted on a Styrofoam disk and placed into a water-filled phantom. The phantom was imaged using four different DECT approaches: (A) dual-source DECT (DS-DE); (B) 1st generation split-filter single-source DECT (SF1-TB); (C) 2nd generation split-filter single-source DECT (SF2-TB) and (D) 2nd generation split-filter single-source DECT using serial acquisitions (SF2-TS). Two different radiation doses (3 mGy and 6 mGy) were used. Noise texture was compared by assessing the average spatial frequency (fav) of the normalized noise power spectrum (nNPS). ROC curves for stone classification were computed and the accuracy for different dual-energy ratio cutoffs was derived. RESULTS: NNPS demonstrated comparable noise texture among A, C, and D (fav-range 0.18-0.19) but finer noise texture for B (fav = 0.27). Stone classification showed an accuracy of 96.9%, 96.9%, 93.8%, 93.8% for A, B, C, D for low-dose, respectively, and 100%, 96.9%, 96.9%, 100% for routine dose. The vendor-specified cutoff for the dual-energy ratio was optimal except for the low-dose scan in D for which the accuracy was improved from 93.8 to 100% using an optimized cutoff. CONCLUSION: Accuracy to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid stones was high among four single-source and dual-source DECT approaches for low- and routine dose DECT scans. Noise texture differed only slightly for the first-generation split-filter approach.
PURPOSE: To compare noise texture and accuracy to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid urinary stones among four different single-source and dual-source DECT approaches in an ex vivo phantom study. METHODS: Thirty-two urinary stones embedded in gelatin were mounted on a Styrofoam disk and placed into a water-filled phantom. The phantom was imaged using four different DECT approaches: (A) dual-source DECT (DS-DE); (B) 1st generation split-filter single-source DECT (SF1-TB); (C) 2nd generation split-filter single-source DECT (SF2-TB) and (D) 2nd generation split-filter single-source DECT using serial acquisitions (SF2-TS). Two different radiation doses (3 mGy and 6 mGy) were used. Noise texture was compared by assessing the average spatial frequency (fav) of the normalized noise power spectrum (nNPS). ROC curves for stone classification were computed and the accuracy for different dual-energy ratio cutoffs was derived. RESULTS: NNPS demonstrated comparable noise texture among A, C, and D (fav-range 0.18-0.19) but finer noise texture for B (fav = 0.27). Stone classification showed an accuracy of 96.9%, 96.9%, 93.8%, 93.8% for A, B, C, D for low-dose, respectively, and 100%, 96.9%, 96.9%, 100% for routine dose. The vendor-specified cutoff for the dual-energy ratio was optimal except for the low-dose scan in D for which the accuracy was improved from 93.8 to 100% using an optimized cutoff. CONCLUSION: Accuracy to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid stones was high among four single-source and dual-source DECT approaches for low- and routine dose DECT scans. Noise texture differed only slightly for the first-generation split-filter approach.
Authors: Patricia Balthazar; Gelareh Sadigh; Danny Hughes; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Tarek Hanna; Richard Duszak Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: André Euler; Markus M Obmann; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Achille Mileto; Caroline Zaehringer; Anna L Falkowski; David J Winkel; Daniele Marin; Bram Stieltjes; Bernhard Krauss; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: André Euler; Anushri Parakh; Anna L Falkowski; Sebastian Manneck; David Dashti; Bernhard Krauss; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 6.016
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: 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