Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):789–794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):982–987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Teichman JMH (2004) Clinical practice. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 350(7):684–693

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1915–1921

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):101–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):438–441

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Curhan GC, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ (1997) Family history and risk of kidney stones. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN 8(10):1568–1573

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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–e96

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):51–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):575–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):553–562

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):105–114

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Meagher T, Sukumar VP, Collingwood J, et al. (2001) Low dose computed tomography in suspected acute renal colic. Clin Radiol 56(11):873–876

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1687–1691

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):305–311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):313–315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):44–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):756–763

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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):1429–1435

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ulzheimer S, Freund J (2012) The Stellar Detector. CA: White Pap Siemens Healthc

    Google Scholar 

  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):560–569

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1058–1062

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):91–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):523–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):105–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):143–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):100–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):231–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):731–737

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bultitude M, Rees J (2012) Management of renal colic. BMJ 345:e5499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–W127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):368–374

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors above have anything to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V5Z 1M9, Canada

    Jun Wang, Tony Kang, Chesnal Arepalli & Sarah Barrett

  2. ER Radiology Division, Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, 899 W 12th Ave., Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada

    Tim O’Connell, Luck Louis, Savvakis Nicolaou & Patrick McLaughlin

Authors
  1. Jun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tony Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chesnal Arepalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tim O’Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luck Louis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Savvakis Nicolaou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Patrick McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick McLaughlin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, J., Kang, T., Arepalli, C. et al. Half-dose non-contrast CT in the investigation of urolithiasis: image quality improvement with third-generation integrated circuit CT detectors. Abdom Imaging 40, 1255–1262 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0264-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0264-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation