Dual-layer spectral detector CT: non-inferiority assessment compared to dual-source dual-energy CT in discriminating uric acid from non-uric acid renal stones ex vivo
- 22 Downloads
To assess the non-inferiority of dual-layer spectral detector CT (SDCT) compared to dual-source dual-energy CT (dsDECT) in discriminating uric acid (UA) from non-UA stones.
Fifty-seven extracted urinary calculi were placed in a cylindrical phantom in a water bath and scanned on a SDCT scanner (IQon, Philips Healthcare) and second- and third-generation dsDECT scanners (Somatom Flash and Force, Siemens Healthcare) under matched scan parameters. For SDCT data, conventional images and virtual monoenergetic reconstructions were created. A customized 3D growing region segmentation tool was used to segment each stone on a pixel-by-pixel basis for statistical analysis. Median virtual monoenergetic ratios (VMRs) of 40/200, 62/92, and 62/100 for each stone were recorded. For dsDECT data, dual-energy ratio (DER) for each stone was recorded from vendor-specific postprocessing software (Syngo Via) using the Kidney Stones Application. The clinical reference standard of X-ray diffraction analysis was used to assess non-inferiority. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess diagnostic performance of detecting UA stones.
Six pure UA, 47 pure calcium-based, 1 pure cystine, and 3 mixed struvite stones were scanned. All pure UA stones were correctly separated from non-UA stones using SDCT and dsDECT (AUC = 1). For UA stones, median VMR was 0.95–0.99 and DER 1.00–1.02. For non-UA stones, median VMR was 1.4–4.1 and DER 1.39–1.69.
SDCT spectral reconstructions demonstrate similar performance to those of dsDECT in discriminating UA from non-UA stones in a phantom model.
KeywordsDual-energy CT Spectral CT Urolithiasis Uric acid Material separation
Compliance with ethical standards
This study received financial support from Philips Healthcare.
Conflict of interest
An institutional research agreement exists between UT Southwestern Medical Center and both Philips Healthcare and Siemens Healthcare. Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan, Xinhui Duan, Yin Xi, Matthew A. Lewis, Margaret S. Pearle, Jodi A. Antonelli, Harold Goerne, Elysha M. Kolitz, Suhny Abbara, Robert E. Lenkinski, Julia R. Fielding, and John R. Leyendecker declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Morgan MS, Pearle MS (2016) Medical management of renal stones. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 352:i52Google Scholar