Domenico Mastrodicasa1, Martin J Willemink1, Nikhil Madhuripan1,2, Ranjit Singh Chima1, Amanzo A Ho1, Yuqin Ding3,4, Daniele Marin3, Bhavik N Patel5. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, 12401 East 17th Avenue, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University; Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA. patel.bhavik@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether single-phase dual-energy CT (DECT) differentiates vascular and nonvascular renal lesions in the portal venous phase (PVP). Optimal iodine threshold was determined and compared to Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements. METHODS: We retrospectively included 250 patients (266 renal lesions) who underwent a clinically indicated PVP abdominopelvic CT on a rapid-kilovoltage-switching single-source DECT (rsDECT) or a dual-source DECT (dsDECT) scanner. Iodine concentration and HU measurements were calculated by four experienced readers. Diagnostic accuracy was determined using biopsy results and follow-up imaging as reference standard. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each DECT scanner to differentiate vascular from nonvascular lesions and vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses evaluated the association between variables and the presence of vascular lesions. RESULTS: A normalized iodine concentration threshold of 0.25 mg/mL yielded high accuracy in differentiating vascular and nonvascular lesions (AUC 0.93, p < 0.001), with comparable performance to HU measurements (AUC 0.93). Both iodine concentration and HU measurements were independently associated with vascular lesions when adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, and lesion size (AUC 0.95 and 0.95, respectively). When combined, diagnostic performance was higher (AUC 0.96). Both absolute and normalized iodine concentrations performed better than HU measurements (AUC 0.92 vs. AUC 0.87) in differentiating vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. CONCLUSION: A single-phase (PVP) DECT scan yields high accuracy to differentiate vascular from nonvascular renal lesions. Iodine concentration showed a slightly higher performance than HU measurements in differentiating vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. KEY POINTS: • A single-phase dual-energy CT scan in the portal venous phase differentiates vascular from nonvascular renal lesions with high accuracy (AUC 0.93). • When combined, iodine concentration and HU measurements showed the highest diagnostic performance (AUC 0.96) to differentiate vascular from nonvascular renal lesions. • Compared to HU measurements, iodine concentration showed a slightly higher performance in differentiating vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether single-phase dual-energy CT (DECT) differentiates vascular and nonvascular renal lesions in the portal venous phase (PVP). Optimal iodine threshold was determined and compared to Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements. METHODS: We retrospectively included 250 patients (266 renal lesions) who underwent a clinically indicated PVP abdominopelvic CT on a rapid-kilovoltage-switching single-source DECT (rsDECT) or a dual-source DECT (dsDECT) scanner. Iodine concentration and HU measurements were calculated by four experienced readers. Diagnostic accuracy was determined using biopsy results and follow-up imaging as reference standard. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each DECT scanner to differentiate vascular from nonvascular lesions and vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses evaluated the association between variables and the presence of vascular lesions. RESULTS: A normalized iodine concentration threshold of 0.25 mg/mL yielded high accuracy in differentiating vascular and nonvascular lesions (AUC 0.93, p < 0.001), with comparable performance to HU measurements (AUC 0.93). Both iodine concentration and HU measurements were independently associated with vascular lesions when adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, and lesion size (AUC 0.95 and 0.95, respectively). When combined, diagnostic performance was higher (AUC 0.96). Both absolute and normalized iodine concentrations performed better than HU measurements (AUC 0.92 vs. AUC 0.87) in differentiating vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. CONCLUSION: A single-phase (PVP) DECT scan yields high accuracy to differentiate vascular from nonvascular renal lesions. Iodine concentration showed a slightly higher performance than HU measurements in differentiating vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. KEY POINTS: • A single-phase dual-energy CT scan in the portal venous phase differentiates vascular from nonvascular renal lesions with high accuracy (AUC 0.93). • When combined, iodine concentration and HU measurements showed the highest diagnostic performance (AUC 0.96) to differentiate vascular from nonvascular renal lesions. • Compared to HU measurements, iodine concentration showed a slightly higher performance in differentiating vascular lesions from hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts.
Authors: Nicolas Murray; Kathryn E Darras; Frances E Walstra; Mohammed F Mohammed; Patrick D McLaughlin; Savvas Nicolaou Journal: Radiographics Date: 2019 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Markus M Obmann; Aurelio Cosentino; Joshy Cyriac; Verena Hofmann; Bram Stieltjes; Daniel T Boll; Benjamin M Yeh; Matthias R Benz Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-06
Authors: Julian Marcon; Anno Graser; David Horst; Jozefina Casuscelli; Annabel Spek; Christian G Stief; Maximilian F Reiser; Johannes Rübenthaler; Alexander Buchner; Michael Staehler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Ivan Pedrosa; James H Ellis; Nicole M Hindman; Nicola Schieda; Andrew D Smith; Erick M Remer; Atul B Shinagare; Nicole E Curci; Steven S Raman; Shane A Wells; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Zhen J Wang; Hersh Chandarana; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bhavik N Patel; Artem T Boltyenkov; Maria G Martinez; Domenico Mastrodicasa; Daniele Marin; R Brooke Jeffrey; Benjamin Chung; Pari Pandharipande; Avinash Kambadakone Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-06