Alternatives to the baseline KUB for CTKUB-detected calculi: evaluation of CT scout and average and maximum intensity projection images
A CT of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CTKUB) is the investigation of choice in suspected renal colic. Plain kidney, ureter, and bladder radiographs (KUB) can be used to monitor the progress of a stone if radiographically visible on a baseline KUB. This study aims to determine if a low-dose CT Scout, thick-slab average intensity projection (AIP), or maximum intensity projection (MIP) images are suitable as substitutes for a baseline KUB.
A retrospective review of patients from a tertiary adult institute that had a positive CTKUB and a KUB within 4 h of the CT was performed. Two consultant radiologists independently reviewed the KUB, CT Scout, AIP, and MIP for stone visibility and their sensitivities and agreement values were compared. Stone characteristics (size, location, and peak Hounsfield units) and patient thickness were recorded and examined for any association with discordant results.
74 stones were evaluated for the study. KUB had a sensitivity of 66.2% (95% CI 54.3–76.8), CT Scout 47.3% (95% CI 35.6–59.3), AIP 55.4% (95% CI 43.4–67.0), and MIP 83.8% (95% CI 73.4–91.3). Fair agreement was found between the KUB and both CT Scout (κ=0.363, 95% CI 0.167–0.558) and AIP (κ=0.384, 95% CI 0.175–0.592). Moderate agreement was found between the KUB and MIP (κ=0.412, 95% CI 0.198–0.625). Neither any stone characteristic nor patient thickness had a significant association with discordant results.
None of the possible substitutes for a baseline KUB showed strong agreement with the KUB. Low-dose CT Scouts have a similar sensitivity to the published literature for higher dose CT Scouts.
KeywordsRenal colic CTKUB CT Scout Urolithiasis AIP MIP
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was provided for this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict 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.
Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.
- 5.Chu G, Rosenfield AT, Anderson K, Scout L, Smith RC (1999) Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173(2):417–423. doi: 10.2214/ajr.173.2.10430147 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Assi Z, Platt JF, Francis IR, Cohan RH, Korobkin M (2000) Sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography for revealing ureteral calculi on helical CT: implications for radiologic follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(2):333–337. doi: 10.2214/ajr.175.2.1750333 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Yap WW, Belfield JC, Bhatnagar P, Kennish S, Wah TM (2012) Evaluation of the sensitivity of scout radiographs on unenhanced helical CT in identifying ureteric calculi: a large UK tertiary referral centre experience. Br J Radiol 85(1014):800–806. doi: 10.1259/bjr/64356303 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Van Beers BE, Dechambre S, Hulcelle P, Materne R, Jamart J (2001) Value of multislice helical CT scans and maximum-intensity-projection images to improve detection of ureteral stones at abdominal radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(5):1117–1121. doi: 10.2214/ajr.177.5.1771117 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar