Diagnostic utility of attenuation measurement (Hounsfield units) in computed tomography stonogram in predicting the radio-opacity of urinary calculi in plain abdominal radiographs
- 245 Downloads
- 5 Citations
Abstract
Objective
(1) To determine the best cut-off level of Hounsfield units (HU) in the CT stonogram that would predict the appearance of a urinary calculi in plain KUB X-ray; (2) to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the best cut-off HU; and (3) to determine whether stone size and location affect the in vivo predictability.
Methods
A prospective cross-sectional study of patients aged 18–85 diagnosed with urolithiases on CT stonogram with concurrent plain KUB radiograph was conducted. Appearance of stones was recorded, and significant difference between radiolucent and radio-opaque CT attenuation level was determined using ANOVA. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve determined the best HU cut-off value. Stone size and location were used for factor variability analysis.
Results
A total of 184 cases were included in this study, and the average urolithiasis size on CT stonogram was 0.84 cm (0.3–4.9 cm). On KUB X-ray, 34.2 % of the urolithiases were radiolucent and 65.8 % were radio-opaque. Mean value of CT Hounsfield unit for radiolucent stones was 358.25 (±156), and that for radio-opaque stones was 816.51 (±274). ROC curve determined the best cut-off value of HU at 498.5, with the sensitivity of 89.3 % and specificity of 87.3 %. For >4 mm stones, the sensitivity was 91.3 % and the specificity was 81.8 %. On the other hand, for =<4 mm stones, the sensitivity was 60 % and the specificity was 89.5 %.
Conclusions
Based on the constructed ROC curve, a threshold value of 498.5 HU in CT stonogram was established as cut-off in determining whether a calculus is radio-opaque or radiolucent. The determined overall sensitivity and specificity of the set cut-off HU value are optimal. Stone size but not location affects the sensitivity and specificity.
Keywords
Hounsfield unit Predictability Radio-opacity CT stonogram KUB X-rayNotes
Conflict of interest
None.
References
- 1.Chee Saw K, McAteer JA, Monga A, Chua G, Lingeman JE, Williams JC (2000) Helical CT of urinary calculi: effect of stone composition, stone size, and scan collimation. AJR 175:329–332Google Scholar
- 2.Krishnamurthy M, Ferucci PG, Sankey N, Chandhoke PS (2005) Is stone radiodensity a useful parameter for predicting outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for stones < 2 cm? Int Braz J Urol 31(1):3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Wang SC, Hsu YS, Chen KK, Chang LS (2004) Correlation between urinary tract pure stone composition and stone morphology on plain abdominal film. J Chin Med Assoc 67(5):235–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Nakada SY, Hoff DG, Attai S, Heisey D, Blankenbaker D, Pozniak M (2000) Determination of stone composition by noncontrast spiral computed tomography in the clinical setting. Urology 55(6):816–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Demirel A, Suma S (2003) The efficacy of non-contrast helical computed tomography in the prediction of urinary stone composition in vivo. J Int Med Res 31(1):1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Mutgi A, Williams JW, Nettleman M (1991) Renal colic. Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med 151:1589–1592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple N, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs of helical unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:1109–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Varanelli MJ, Coll DM, Levine JA, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC (2001) Relationship between duration of pain and secondary signs of obstruction of the urinary tract on unenhanced helical CT. AJR 177:325–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Goldman S, Faintuch S, Ajzen S, Christofalo D, Araújo M, Ortiz V, Srougi M, Kenney P, Szejnfeld J (2004) Diagnostic value of attenuation measurements of the kidney on unenhanced helical CT of obstructive ureterolithiasis. AJR 182:1251–1254PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Zou KH, O’Malley AJ, Mauri L (2007) Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation 115(5):654–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.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–e96Google Scholar
- 12.Shirazi F, Shahpourian F, Khachian A, Hosseini F, Rad A, Heidari S, Sanjari M (2009) Personal characteristics and urinary stones. Hong Kong J Nephrol 11(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Michaels EK, Nakagawa Y, Miura N et al (1994) Racial variation in gender frequency of calcium urolithiasis. J Urol 152:2228–2231PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Nordin BE, Need AG, Morris HA, Horowitz M (1999) Biochemical variables in pre- and postmenopausal women: reconciling the calcium and estrogen hypotheses. Osteoporos Int 9:351–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.McKane WR, Khosla S, Burritt MF (1995) Mechanism of renal calcium conservation with estrogen replacement therapy in women in early postmenopause—a clinical research center study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 80:3458–3464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Huang CC, Chuang CK, Wong YC, Wang LJ, Wu CH (2009) Useful prediction of ureteral calculi visibility on abdominal radiographs based on calculi characteristics on unenhanced helical CT and CT scout radiographs. Int J Clin Pract 63(2):292–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Patel SR, Haleblian G, Zabbo A, Pareek G (2009) Hounsfield units on computed tomography predict calcium stone subtype composition. Urol Int 83(2):175–180 Epub 2009 Sep 10Google Scholar
- 18.Memarsadeghi M, Heinz-Peer G, Helbich T, Schaefer-Prokop C, Kramer G, Scharitzer M, Prokop M (2005) Unenhanced multi–detector row CT in patients suspected of having urinary stone disease: effect of section width on diagnosis. Radiology 235:530–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, Chua GT, Lingeman JE, Williams JC (2000) Effect of stone composition, stone size, and scan collimation. AJR 175:329–332 (Helical CT of Urinary Calculi)Google Scholar