Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 1255–1262 | Cite as

Half-dose non-contrast CT in the investigation of urolithiasis: image quality improvement with third-generation integrated circuit CT detectors

  • Jun Wang
  • Tony Kang
  • Chesnal Arepalli
  • Sarah Barrett
  • Tim O’Connell
  • Luck Louis
  • Savvakis Nicolaou
  • Patrick McLaughlin
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study is to establish the effect of third-generation integrated circuit (IC) CT detector on objective image quality in full- and half-dose non-contrast CT of the urinary tract.

Methods

51 consecutive patients with acute renal colic underwent non-contrast CT of the urinary tract using a 128-slice dual-source CT before (n = 24) and after (n = 27) the installation of third-generation IC detectors. Half-dose images were generated using projections from detector A using the dual-source RAW data. Objective image noise in the liver, spleen, right renal cortex, and right psoas muscle was compared between DC and IC cohorts for full-dose and half-dose images reconstructed with FBP and IR algorithms using 1 cm2 regions of interest. Presence and size of obstructing ureteric calculi were also compared for full-dose and half-dose reconstructions using DC and IC detectors.

Results

No statistical difference in age and lateral body size was found between patients in the IC and DC cohorts. Radiation dose, as measured by size-specific dose estimates, did not differ significantly either between the two cohorts (10.02 ± 4.54 mGy IC vs. 12.28 ± 7.03 mGy DC). At full dose, objective image noise was not significantly lower in the IC cohort as compared to the DC cohort for the liver, spleen, and right psoas muscle. At half dose, objective image noise was lower in the IC cohort as compared to DC cohort at the liver (21.32 IC vs. 24.99 DC, 14.7% decrease, p < 0.001), spleen (19.33 IC vs. 20.83 DC, 7.20% decrease, p = 0.02), and right renal cortex (20.28 IC vs. 22.98 DC, 11.7% decrease, p = 0.005). Mean obstructing ureteric calculi size was not significantly different when comparison was made between full-dose and half-dose images, regardless of detector type (p > 0.05 for all comparisons).

Conclusions

Third-generation IC detectors result in lower objective image noise at full- and half-radiation dose levels as compared with traditional DC detectors. The magnitude of noise reduction was greater at half-radiation dose indicating that the benefits of using novel IC detectors are greater in low and ultra-low-dose CT imaging.

Keywords

Computed tomography (CT) Integrated circuit (IC) Dose reduction Urinary calculi 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

None of the authors above have anything to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. (1995) Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 194(3):789–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller OF, Rineer SK, Reichard SR, et al. (1998) Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology 52(6):982–987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teichman JMH (2004) Clinical practice. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 350(7):684–693PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, et al. (1997) Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association. J Urol 158(5):1915–1921PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC (2002) Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(1):101–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sierakowski R, Finlayson B, Landes RR, Finlayson CD, Sierakowski N (1978) The frequency of urolithiasis in hospital discharge diagnoses in the United States. Invest Urol 15(6):438–441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curhan GC, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ (1997) Family history and risk of kidney stones. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN 8(10):1568–1573Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG (2010) Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 12(2–3):e86–e96PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, et al. (2000) Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology 215(1):51–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heneghan JP, McGuire KA, Leder RA, et al. (2003) Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology 229(2):575–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mulkens TH, Daineffe S, De Wijngaert R, et al. (2007) Urinary stone disease: comparison of standard-dose and low-dose with 4D MDCT tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188(2):553–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tartari S, Rizzati R, Righi R, et al. (2010) Low-dose unenhanced CT protocols according to individual body size for evaluating suspected renal colic: cumulative radiation exposures. Radiol Med (Torino) 115(1):105–114Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meagher T, Sukumar VP, Collingwood J, et al. (2001) Low dose computed tomography in suspected acute renal colic. Clin Radiol 56(11):873–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamm M, Knopfle E, Wartenberg S, et al. (2002) Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol 167(4):1687–1691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(2):305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz DS, Venkataramanan N, Napel S, Sommer FG (2003) Can low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT be used for routine evaluation of suspected renal colic? AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(2):313–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, et al. (2006) Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 30(1):44–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim BS, Hwang IK, Choi YW, et al. (2005) Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study. Acta Radiol 46(7):756–763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q. 2012 Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT With adaptive statistical IR and routine-dose CT With FBP in 53 Patients [Internet]. [cited 2014 Mar 25]. from http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.09.2989.
  20. 20.
    Winklehner A, Blume I, Winklhofer S, et al. (2013) Iterative reconstructions vs. filtered back-projection for urinary stone detection in low-dose CT. Acad Radiol 20(11):1429–1435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kulkarni NM, Uppot RN, Eisner BH, Sahani DV (2012) Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical IR for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go? Radiology 265(1):158–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ulzheimer S, Freund J (2012) The Stellar Detector. CA: White Pap Siemens HealthcGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fletcher JG, Grant KLR, Fidler JL, et al. (2012) Validation of dual-source single-tube reconstruction as a method to obtain half-dose images to evaluate radiation dose and noise reduction: phantom and human assessment using CT colonography and sinogram-affirmed IR (SAFIRE). J Comput Assist Tomogr 36(5):560–569PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spielmann AL, Heneghan JP, Lee LJ, Yoshizumi T, Nelson RC (2002) Decreasing the radiation dose for renal stone CT: a feasibility study of single- and multidetector CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(5):1058–1062PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tublin ME, Murphy ME, Delong DM, Tessler FN, Kliewer MA (2002) Conspicuity of renal calculi at unenhanced CT: effects of calculus composition and size and CT technique. Radiology 225(1):91–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, D’Souza RV, et al. (2005) Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 235(2):523–529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ciaschini MW, Remer EM, Baker ME, Lieber M, Herts BR (2009) Urinary calculi: radiation dose reduction of 50% and 75% at CT–effect on sensitivity. Radiology 251(1):105–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karmazyn B, Frush DP, Applegate KE, et al. (2009) CT with a computer-simulated dose reduction technique for detection of pediatric nephroureterolithiasis: comparison of standard and reduced radiation doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(1):143–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jin DH, Lamberton GR, Broome DR, et al. (2010) Effect of reduced radiation CT protocols on the detection of renal calculi. Radiology 255(1):100–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sohn W, Clayman RV, Lee JY, Cohen A, Mucksavage P (2013) Low-dose and standard computed tomography scans yield equivalent stone measurements. Urology 81(2):231–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lidén M, Andersson T, Broxvall M, Thunberg P, Geijer H (2012) Urinary stone size estimation: a new segmentation algorithm-based CT method. Eur Radiol 22(4):731–737PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bultitude M, Rees J (2012) Management of renal colic. BMJ 345:e5499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Furlan A, Federle MP, Yealy DM, Averch TD, Pealer K (2008) Nonobstructing renal stones on unenhanced CT: a real cause for renal colic? AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(2):W125–W127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Rätzer S, Schmidt B, Alkadhi H (2014) Integrated Circuit Detector Technology in Abdominal CT: Added Value in Obese Patients. Am J Roentgenol 202(2):368–374Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Wang
    • 1
  • Tony Kang
    • 1
  • Chesnal Arepalli
    • 1
  • Sarah Barrett
    • 1
  • Tim O’Connell
    • 2
  • Luck Louis
    • 2
  • Savvakis Nicolaou
    • 2
  • Patrick McLaughlin
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.ER Radiology Division, Department of RadiologyVancouver General HospitalVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations