4.6 Article

Ex Vivo Renal Stone Characterization with Single-Source Dual-Energy Computed Tomography: A Multiparametric Approach

Journal

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 969-976

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.03.009

Keywords

Dual-energy computed tomography; multiparametric data analysis; renal stone composition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale and Objectives: We aimed to investigate a multiparametric approach using single-source dual-energy computed tomography (ssDECT) for the characterization of renal stones. Materials and Methods: ssDECT scans were performed at 80 and 140 kVp on 32 ex vivo kidney stones of 3-10 mm in a phantom. True composition was determined by infrared spectroscopy to be uric acid (UA; n = 14), struvite (n = 7), cystine (n = 7), or calcium oxalate monohydrate (n = 4). Measurements were obtained for up to 52 variables, including mean density at 11 monochromatic keV levels, effective Z, and multiple material basis pairs. The data were analyzed with five multiparametric algorithms. After omitting 8 stones smaller than 5 mm, the remaining 24-stone dataset was similarly analyzed. Both stone datasets were also analyzed with a subset of 14 commonly used variables in the same fashion. Results: For the 32-stone dataset, the best method for distinguishing UA from non-UA stones was 97% accurate, and for distinguishing the non-UA subtypes was 72% accurate. For the 24-stone dataset, the best method for distinguishing UA from non-UA stones was 100% accurate, and for distinguishing the non-UA subtypes was 75% accurate. Conclusion: Multiparametric ssDECT methods can distinguish UA from non-UA stones of 5 mm or larger with 100% accuracy. The best model to distinguish the non-UA renal stone subtypes was 75% accurate. Further refinement of this multiparametric approach may increase the diagnostic accuracy of separating non-UA subtypes and assist in the development of a clinical paradigm for in vivo use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available