ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Radiologic imaging is important for the detection, staging and follow-up of urological tumors. Basic therapy decisions for both oncological (surgical vs. systemic therapy, e.g. in testicular cancer) and non-oncological pathologies (interventional vs. conservative therapy, e.g. for ureteral stones) depend largely on the tomographic imaging performed. Due to its almost ubiquitous availability, speed and cost-effectiveness, computed tomography (CT) plays an important role not only in the clarification of abdominal trauma and non-traumatic emergencies, but also in staging and follow-up of oncological patients. However, the level of radiation exposure, impaired renal function and allergies to iodinated contrast media limit the use of CT. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be a good alternative for many areas of application in oncological and non-oncological imaging due to its high soft tissue differentiation and functional-specific protocols but without the use of ionizing radiation. AIM: In the following, the main indications of abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI in urology and their limitations are summarized. RESULTS: The areas of application between CT and MRI are increasingly overlapping, since the latest developments in CT continue to further reduce radiation exposure and increase contrast information, while the speed and robustness of MRI are significantly improving at the same time.
Subject(s)
Testicular Neoplasms , Urologic Diseases , Contrast Media , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Urologic Diseases/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality and diagnostic confidence of low-dose computed tomography (CT) of urololithiasis using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction techniques (IRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 4.8 × 4.3 × 5.2 mm(3) uric acid ureteral stone was placed inside an anthropomorphic Alderson phantom at the pelvic level. Fifteen scans were performed on a 64-row dual-source CT system using different tube voltages (80, 100, and 120 kV) and current-time products (8, 15, 30, 70, and 100 mAs). Image reconstruction using FBP and IRT (iterative reconstruction in image space) resulted in 30 data sets. Objective image quality was evaluated by noise measurements. Effective doses were estimated for each data set with use of an established dosimetry program. Subjective image quality and confidence level were rated by two radiologists. RESULTS: Noise was systematically lower for images reconstructed with IRT compared to FBP (55 ± 30 vs 65 ± 26 Hounsfield units; P = .004) for volume CT dose index values above about 0.6 mGy (or an effective dose of about 0.4 mSv for both sexes). For the 14 scans rated to have diagnostic image quality, the estimated effective doses ranged from 0.3 to 2.5 mSv for males and from 0.4 to 3.1 mSv for females. Subjective image quality and diagnostic confidence for IRT was not significantly better than those for FBP. CONCLUSIONS: In a phantom study for CT of urolithiasis, IRT improves objective image quality compared to FBP above a certain dose threshold. However, this does not translate into improved subjective image quality or a higher degree of confidence for the diagnosis of high-contrast urinary stones.
