Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard.
Pooler, B Dustin; Lubner, Meghan G; Kim, David H; Ryckman, Eva M; Sivalingam, Sri; Tang, Jie; Nakada, Stephen Y; Chen, Guang-Hong; Pickhardt, Perry J.
Afiliação
  • Pooler BD; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Lubner MG; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Kim DH; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Ryckman EM; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Sivalingam S; Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Tang J; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Nakada SY; Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Chen GH; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Pickhardt PJ; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: ppickhardt2@uwhealth.org.
J Urol ; 192(5): 1433-9, 2014 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24859440
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

In this prospective trial we compared ultralow dose computerized tomography reconstruction algorithms and routine low dose computerized tomography for detecting urolithiasis. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A total of 48 consenting adults prospectively underwent routine low dose noncontrast computerized tomography immediately followed by an ultralow dose series targeted at a 70% to 90% reduction from the routine low dose technique (sub mSv range). Ultralow dose series were reconstructed with filtered back projection, and adaptive statistical and model based iterative reconstruction techniques. Transverse (axial) and coronal images were sequentially reviewed by 3 relatively inexperienced trainees, including a radiology resident, a urology fellow and an abdominal imaging fellow. Three experienced abdominal radiologists independently reviewed the routine low dose filtered back projection images, which served as the reference standard.

RESULTS:

The mean effective dose for the ultralow dose scans was 0.91 mSv (median 0.82), representing a mean ± SD 78% ± 5% decrease compared to the routine low dose. Overall sensitivity and positive predictive value per stone for ultralow dose computerized tomography at a 4 mm threshold was 0.91 and 0.98, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy per patient were 0.87, 1.00, 1.00, 0.94 and 0.96, respectively. At a 4 mm threshold the sensitivity and positive predictive value per stone of the ultralow dose series for filtered back projection, and adaptive statistical and model based iterative reconstruction was 0.89 and 0.96, 0.91 and 0.98, and 0.93 and 1.00, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy per patient at the 4 mm threshold were 0.82, 1.00, 1.00, 0.91 and 0.94 for filtered back projection, 0.85, 1.00, 1.00, 0.93 and 0.95 for adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and 0.94, 1.00, 1.00, 0.97 and 0.98 for model based iterative reconstruction, respectively. Sequential review of coronal images changed the final stone reading in 13% of cases and improved diagnostic confidence in 49%.

CONCLUSIONS:

At a 4 mm renal calculus size threshold ultralow dose computerized tomography is accurate for detection when referenced against routine low dose series with dose reduction to below the level of a typical 2-view plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder. Slight differences were seen among the reconstruction algorithms. There was mild improvement with model based iterative reconstruction over filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Coronal images improved detection and diagnostic confidence over axial images alone.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Algoritmos / Interpretação de Imagem Radiográfica Assistida por Computador / Urolitíase / Tomografia Computadorizada Multidetectores Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Urol Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Algoritmos / Interpretação de Imagem Radiográfica Assistida por Computador / Urolitíase / Tomografia Computadorizada Multidetectores Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Urol Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article