European Radiology

, 19:1553 | Cite as

Dual-energy CT for the characterization of urinary calculi: In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a low-dose scanning protocol

  • C. Thomas
  • O. Patschan
  • D. Ketelsen
  • I. Tsiflikas
  • A. Reimann
  • H. Brodoefel
  • M. Buchgeister
  • U. Nagele
  • A. Stenzl
  • C. Claussen
  • A. Kopp
  • M. Heuschmid
  • H.-P. Schlemmer
Urogenital

Abstract

The efficiency and radiation dose of a low-dose dual-energy (DE) CT protocol for the evaluation of urinary calculus disease were evaluated. A low-dose dual-source DE-CT renal calculi protocol (140 kV, 46 mAs; 80 kV, 210 mAs) was derived from the single-energy (SE) CT protocol used in our institution for the detection of renal calculi (120 kV, 75 mAs). An Alderson-Rando phantom was equipped with thermoluminescence dosimeters and examined by CT with both protocols. The effective doses were calculated. Fifty-one patients with suspected or known urinary calculus disease underwent DE-CT. DE analysis was performed if calculi were detected using a dedicated software tool. Results were compared to chemical analysis after invasive calculus extraction. An effective dose of 3.43 mSv (male) and 5.30 mSv (female) was measured in the phantom for the DE protocol (vs. 3.17/4.57 mSv for the SE protocol). Urinary calculi were found in 34 patients; in 28 patients, calculi were removed and analyzed (23 patients with calcified calculi, three with uric acid calculi, one with 2,8-dihyxdroxyadenine-calculi, one patient with a mixed struvite calculus). DE analysis was able to distinguish between calcified and non-calcified calculi in all cases. In conclusion, dual-energy urinary calculus analysis is effective also with a low-dose protocol. The protocol tested in this study reliably identified calcified urinary calculi in vivo.

References

  1. 1.
    Saita A, Bonaccorsi A, Motta M (2007) Stone composition: where do we stand. Urol Int 79 Suppl 1:16–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson CM, Wilson DM, O’Fallon WM et al (1979) Renal stone epidemiology: a 25-year study in Rochester, Minnesota. Kidney Int 16:624–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 178:101–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52:1610–1631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deveci S, Coskun M, Tekin MI et al (2004) Spiral computed tomography: role in determination of chemical compositions of pure and mixed urinary stones–an in vitro study. Urology 64:237–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heneghan JP, McGuire KA, Leder RA et al (2003) Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology 229:575–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kawashima A, Vrtiska TJ, LeRoy AJ et al (2004) CT urography. Radiographics 24 Suppl 1:S35–54 discussion S55-38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 235:523–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B (1998) Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 159:673–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheir KZ, Mansour O, Madbouly K et al (2005) Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by noncontrast spiral computerized tomography. Urol Res 33:99–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C et al (2001) Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urology 58:170–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitcheson HD, Zamenhof RG, Bankoff MS et al (1983) Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by computerized tomography. J Urol 130:814–819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M et al (2008) Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol 43:112–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grosjean R, Sauer B, Guerra RM et al (2008) Characterization of human renal stones with MDCT: advantage of dual energy and limitations due to respiratory motion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:720–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Rentsch K et al (2008) Dual-energy computed tomography for the differentiation of uric acid stones: ex vivo performance evaluation. Urol Res 36:133–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huda W, Sandison GA (1984) Estimation of mean organ doses in diagnostic radiology from Rando phantom measurements. Health Phys 47:463–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunold P, Vogt FM, Schmermund A et al (2003) Radiation exposure during cardiac CT: effective doses at multi-detector row CT and electron-beam CT. Radiology 226:145–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zankl M, Panzer W, Drexler G (1991) The Calculation of Dose from External Photon Exposure Using Reference Human Phantoms and Monte Carlo Methods. Part VI: Organ Doses from Computed Tomographic Examinations. GSF-Bericht 30/91. GSF-Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit, OberschleißheimGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Protection ICoR (1991) Recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60 Oxford. Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT et al (2007) Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:927–933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 46:756–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coe FL, Evan A, Worcester E (2005) Kidney stone disease. J Clin Invest 115:2598–2608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Thomas
    • 1
    • 4
  • O. Patschan
    • 2
  • D. Ketelsen
    • 1
  • I. Tsiflikas
    • 1
  • A. Reimann
    • 1
  • H. Brodoefel
    • 1
  • M. Buchgeister
    • 3
  • U. Nagele
    • 2
  • A. Stenzl
    • 2
  • C. Claussen
    • 1
  • A. Kopp
    • 1
  • M. Heuschmid
    • 1
  • H.-P. Schlemmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Medical Physics, Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations