Ali Pourvaziri1, Amirkasra Mojtahed2, Peter F Hahn2, Michael S Gee2, Avinash Kambadakone2, Dushyant V Sahani3. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. Apourvaziri@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of dual-energy CT (DECT) utilization in practice by measuring the readers' confidence, the need for additional image requests, and diagnostic performance in renal lesion assessment, compared to single-energy CT (SECT) using contrast-enhanced MRI to establish the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients (M/F = 47/22) who underwent a dual-phase renal SECT (n = 34) or DECT (n = 35) and had a contrast-enhanced MRI within 180 days were retrospectively collected. Three radiologists assessed images on different sessions (SECT, DECT, and MRI) for (1) likely diagnosis (enhancing/non-enhancing); (2) diagnostic confidence (5-point Likert scale); (3) need for additional imaging test (yes/no); and (4) need for follow-up imaging (yes/no). Diagnostic accuracy was compared using AUC; p value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six lesions consisting of 18% enhancing (n = 28/156, mean size: 30.37 mm, range: 9.9-94 mm) and 82% non-enhancing (n = 128/156, mean size: 23.91 mm, range: 5.0-94.2 mm) were included. The confidence level was significantly lower for SECT than their MRI (4.50 vs. 4.80, p value < 0.05) but not significantly different for DECT and the corresponding MRI (4.78 vs. 4.78, p > 0.05). There were significantly more requests for additional imaging in the SECT session than the corresponding MRI (20% vs. 4%), which was not significantly different between DECT and their MRI counterpart session (5.7% vs. 4.9%). Inter-reader agreement was almost perfect for DECT and MRI (kappa: 0.8-1) and substantial in SECT sessions (kappa: 0.6-0.8) with comparable diagnostic accuracy between SECT, DECT, and MRI (p value > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Single-phase DECT allows confident and reproducible characterization of renal masses with fewer recommendation for additional and follow-up imaging tests than dual-phase SECT and a performance similar to MRI. KEY POINTS: • DECT utilization leads to similar additional image requests to MRI (5.7% vs. 4.9%, p value > 0.05), whereas single-energy CT utilization leads to significantly higher image requests (20% vs. 4%, p value < 0.05). • DECT and MRI utilization bring highly reproducible results with almost perfect inter-reader agreement (kappa: 0.8-1), better than the inter-reader agreement in SECT utilization (kappa: 0.6-0.8). • Readers' confidence was not significantly altered between DECT and their MRI readout session (p value > 0.05). In contrast, confidence in the diagnosis was significantly lower in the SECT session than their MRI readout (p value < 0.05).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of dual-energy CT (DECT) utilization in practice by measuring the readers' confidence, the need for additional image requests, and diagnostic performance in renal lesion assessment, compared to single-energy CT (SECT) using contrast-enhanced MRI to establish the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine patients (M/F = 47/22) who underwent a dual-phase renal SECT (n = 34) or DECT (n = 35) and had a contrast-enhanced MRI within 180 days were retrospectively collected. Three radiologists assessed images on different sessions (SECT, DECT, and MRI) for (1) likely diagnosis (enhancing/non-enhancing); (2) diagnostic confidence (5-point Likert scale); (3) need for additional imaging test (yes/no); and (4) need for follow-up imaging (yes/no). Diagnostic accuracy was compared using AUC; p value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six lesions consisting of 18% enhancing (n = 28/156, mean size: 30.37 mm, range: 9.9-94 mm) and 82% non-enhancing (n = 128/156, mean size: 23.91 mm, range: 5.0-94.2 mm) were included. The confidence level was significantly lower for SECT than their MRI (4.50 vs. 4.80, p value < 0.05) but not significantly different for DECT and the corresponding MRI (4.78 vs. 4.78, p > 0.05). There were significantly more requests for additional imaging in the SECT session than the corresponding MRI (20% vs. 4%), which was not significantly different between DECT and their MRI counterpart session (5.7% vs. 4.9%). Inter-reader agreement was almost perfect for DECT and MRI (kappa: 0.8-1) and substantial in SECT sessions (kappa: 0.6-0.8) with comparable diagnostic accuracy between SECT, DECT, and MRI (p value > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Single-phase DECT allows confident and reproducible characterization of renal masses with fewer recommendation for additional and follow-up imaging tests than dual-phase SECT and a performance similar to MRI. KEY POINTS: • DECT utilization leads to similar additional image requests to MRI (5.7% vs. 4.9%, p value > 0.05), whereas single-energy CT utilization leads to significantly higher image requests (20% vs. 4%, p value < 0.05). • DECT and MRI utilization bring highly reproducible results with almost perfect inter-reader agreement (kappa: 0.8-1), better than the inter-reader agreement in SECT utilization (kappa: 0.6-0.8). • Readers' confidence was not significantly altered between DECT and their MRI readout session (p value > 0.05). In contrast, confidence in the diagnosis was significantly lower in the SECT session than their MRI readout (p value < 0.05).
Authors: B P Kreft; H Müller-Miny; T Sommer; A Steudel; M Vahlensieck; D Novak; B G Müller; H H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 1997 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fawaz Al Harbi; Leila Tabatabaeefar; Michael A Jewett; Anthony Finelli; Martin O'Malley; Mostafa Atri Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lincoln L Berland; Stuart G Silverman; Richard M Gore; William W Mayo-Smith; Alec J Megibow; Judy Yee; James A Brink; Mark E Baker; Michael P Federle; W Dennis Foley; Isaac R Francis; Brian R Herts; Gary M Israel; Glenn Krinsky; Joel F Platt; William P Shuman; Andrew J Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.532