Kidney Imaging

  • Anno Graser
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


MDCT is the most important imaging method in patients with suspicious renal masses. Traditionally, multiphasic examinations have to be performed as detection and characterization of malignancy relies on enhancement of masses, and unenhanced images are used for detection of intralesional fat and calcification. Dual energy CT (DECT) has the potential to simplify and improve renal mass characterization by direct visualization of enhancement in a color coded fashion. Based on three-material decomposition principles, DECT enables iodine quantification within every voxel of a CT dataset without the need to acquire unenhanced images. Based on our research we propose a single phase renal mass imaging protocol for MDCT, thereby significantly decreasing radiation exposure to the patient. In summary, renal DECT allows fast and reliable renal mass characterization, and significantly reduces radiation dose by omission of true nonenhanced scans.


Renal Mass Hounsfield Unit Unenhanced Image Nephrographic Phase Iodine Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE et al (1996) Multiphasic renal CT: comparison of renal mass enhancement during the corticomedullary and nephrographic phases. Radiology 200(3):753–758PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Birnbaum BA, Hindman N et al (2007) Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: influence of multidetector CT reconstruction algorithm and scanner type in phantom model. Radiology 244(3):767–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosniak MA, Rofsky NM (1996) Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 200(1):286–287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandarana H, Godoy MC et al (2008) Abdominal aorta: evaluation with dual-source dual-energy multidetector CT after endovascular repair of aneurysms–initial observations. Radiology 249(2):692–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Graser A, Wintersperger BJ et al (2006) Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187(3):695–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graser A, Johnson TR et al (2008) Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol 43(2):112–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graser A, Johnson TR et al (2009a) Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 19:13–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graser A, Johnson TR et al (2009b) Dual-energy CT in patients suspected of having renal masses: can virtual nonenhanced images replace true nonenhanced images? Radiology 252:433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2005) How i do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology 236(2):441–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2008) Pitfalls in renal mass evaluation and how to avoid them. Radiographics 28(5):1325–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson TR, Krauss B et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17(6):1510–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Macari M, Spieler B et al (2010) Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(1):W27–W32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Petersilka M, Bruder H et al (2008) Technical principles of dual source CT. Eur J Radiol 68(3):362–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vikram R, Ng CS et al (2009) Papillary renal cell carcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation and spectrum of disease. Radiographics 29(3):741–754, discussion 755-757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity of Munich, Grosshadern HospitalMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations