Advertisement

Rapid kVp switching dual-energy CT in the assessment of urolithiasis in patients with large body habitus: preliminary observations on image quality and stone characterization

  • Hamed Kordbacheh
  • Vinit Baliyan
  • Pranit Singh
  • Brian H. Eisner
  • Dushyant V. Sahani
  • Avinash R Kambadakone
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the image quality (IQ) considerations of rapid kVp switching dual-energy CT (rsDECT) in the assessment of urolithiasis in patients with large body habitus and to evaluate whether it allows stone characterization.

Materials and methods

In this IRB-approved, HIPAA compliant retrospective study, 93 consecutive patients (M/F = 72/21, mean age 56.9 years, range 23–83 years) with large body habitus (> 90 kg/198 lbs) who underwent dual-energy (DE) stone protocol CT on a rapid kVp switching DECT scanner between January 2013 and December 2016 were included. Scan acquisition protocol included an initial unenhanced single-energy CT (SECT) scan of KUB followed by targeted DECT in the region of stones. Two readers evaluated both CT data sets (axial 5 mm 120 kVp/140 kVp QC/70 keV monoenergetic, material density water/iodine images and coronal/sagittal 3 mm images) for the assessment of image quality (Scores: 1–4) and characterization of stone composition (reference standard: crystallography).

Results

One hundred and five CT examinations were performed in 93 patients (mean body weight 105.12 ± 13.53 kg, range 91–154 kg), and a total of 321 urinary tract calculi (mean size-4.8 ± 3.2 mm, range 1.2–22 mm) were detected. Both SECT and targeted monoenergetic images were of acceptable image quality (mean IQ: 3.77 and 3.83, kappa 0.79 and 0.87 respectively). Material density water and iodine images had lower IQ scores (mean IQ: 2.97 and 3.09 respectively) with image quality deterioration due to severe photon starvation/streak artifacts in 20% (21/105) and 17% (18/105) scans, respectively. Characterization of stone composition into uric acid/non-uric acid stones was achieved in 93.14% (299/321) of calculi (mean size: 4.99 ± 3.3 mm, range 1.2–22 mm), while 7% (22/321) stones could not be characterized (mean size 3.03 ± 1.16 mm, range 1.6–6.4 mm) (p < 0.001). Most common reason for non-characterization was image quality deterioration of the material density iodine images due to severe photon starvation artifacts. On multivariate regression, stone size and patient weight were predictors of stone composition determination on DECT (p < 0.05). The transverse diameter had a weak negative correlation with stone composition determination, but it was not statistically significant. Stone characterization into uric acid vs. non-uric acid stones was accurate in 95% (n = 38/40) of stones in comparison with crystallography.

Conclusion

In patients with large body habitus, rsDECT allowed characterization of most calculi (93%) despite image quality deterioration due to photon starvation/streak artifacts in up to 20% of material density images. Stone size and patient weight were predictors of stone composition determination on DECT, and small calculi in very large patients may not be characterized.

Keywords

Rapid kVp switching dual energy CT Urolithiasis Large body habitus 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

There is no source of funding for this original article. The author identifying information is on the title page that is separate from the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Hamed Kordbacheh, MD, declares he has no conflict of interest; Vinit Baliyan, MD, declares he has no conflict of interest; Pranit Singh declares he has no conflict of interest; Brian H Eisner, MD, declares he has no conflict of interest; Dushyant V Sahani, MD, recieves grant support for research activities from GE healthcare, Advisory Board of Allena Pharmaceuticals, Royalties from Elsevier; Avinash R Kambadakone, MD, FRCR, declares he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Sturm R, Hattori A (2013) Morbid obesity rates continue to rise rapidly in the US. Int J Obes 2005. 37(6):889–891Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jarolimova J, Tagoni J, Stern TA. Obesity: its epidemiology, comorbidities, and management. prim care companion CNS Disord. 2013; 15(5). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907314/. Accessed 31 Mar 2018
  3. 3.
    Uppot RN, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, et al. (2006) Effect of obesity on image quality: fifteen-year longitudinal study for evaluation of dictated radiology reports 1. Radiology. 240(2):435–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS (2012) Urologic diseases in America project. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62(1):160–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pak CY, Sakhaee K, Peterson RD, Poindexter JR, Frawley WH (2001) Biochemical profile of idiopathic uric acid nephrolithiasis. Kidney Int. 60(2):757–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ekeruo WO, Tan YH, Young MD, et al. (2004) Metabolic risk factors and the impact of medical therapy on the management of nephrolithiasis in obese patients. J Urol. 172(1):159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Semins MJ, Shore AD, Makary MA, et al. (2010) The association of increasing body mass index and kidney stone disease. J Urol. 183(2):571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carbone A, Al Salhi Y, Tasca A, et al. (2018) Obesity and kidney stone disease: a systematic review. Minerva Urol E Nefrol Ital J Urol Nephrol. 70(4):393–400Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Najeeb Q, Masood I, Bhaskar N, et al. (2013) Effect of BMI and urinary pH on urolithiasis and its composition. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant. 24(1):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chou Y-H, Su C-M, Li C-C, et al. (2011) Difference in urinary stone components between obese and non-obese patients. Urol Res. 39(4):283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daudon M, Traxer O, Conort P, Lacour B, Jungers P (2006) Type 2 diabetes increases the risk for uric acid stones. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN. 17(7):2026–2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hess B (2012) Metabolic syndrome, obesity and kidney stones. Arab J Urol. 10(3):258–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brisbane W, Bailey MR, Sorensen MD (2016) An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques. Nat Rev Urol. 13(11):654–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCarthy CJ, Baliyan V, Kordbacheh H, et al. (2016) Radiology of renal stone disease. Int J Surg Lond Engl. 36(Pt D):638–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daudon M, Lacour B, Jungers P (2006) Influence of body size on urinary stone composition in men and women. Urol Res. 34(3):193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Megibow AJ, Sahani D (2012) Best practice: implementation and use of abdominal dual-energy CT in routine patient care. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(5 Suppl):S71–S77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kulkarni NM, Eisner BH, Pinho DF, et al. (2013) Determination of renal stone composition in phantom and patients using single-source dual-energy computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 37(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ngo TC, Assimos DG (2007) Uric acid nephrolithiasis: recent progress and future directions. Rev Urol. 9(1):17–27PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caramia G, Di Gregorio L, Tarantino ML, et al. (2004) Uric acid, phosphate and oxalate stones: treatment and prophylaxis. Urol Int. 72(Suppl 1):24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duan X, Li Z, Yu L, et al. (2015) Characterization of urinary stone composition by use of third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT with increased spectral separation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 205(6):1203–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leng S, Huang A, Cardona JM, et al. (2016) Dual-energy CT for quantification of urinary stone composition in mixed stones: a phantom study. Am J Roentgenol. 207(2):321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wisenbaugh ES, Paden RG, Silva AC, Humphreys MR (2014) Dual-energy vs conventional computed tomography in determining stone composition. Urology. 83(6):1243–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Akand M, Koplay M, Islamoglu N, et al. (2016) Role of dual-source dual-energy computed tomography versus X-ray crystallography in prediction of the stone composition: a retrospective non-randomized pilot study. Int Urol Nephrol. 48(9):1413–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qu M, Jaramillo-Alvarez G, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, et al. (2012) Urinary stone differentiation in patients with large body size using dual-energy dual-source computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 23(5):1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jepperson MA, Cernigliaro JG, Sella D, et al. (2013) Dual-energy CT for the evaluation of urinary calculi: image interpretation, pitfalls and stone mimics. Clin Radiol. 68(12):e707–e714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Le NTT, Robinson J, Lewis SJ (2015) Obese patients and radiography literature: what do we know about a big issue? J Med Radiat Sci. 62(2):132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Desai GS, Fuentes Orrego JM, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV (2013) Performance of iterative reconstruction and automated tube voltage selection on the image quality and radiation dose in abdominal CT scans. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 37(6):897–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Desai GS, Uppot RN, Yu EW, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV (2012) Impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose in multidetector CT of large body size adults. Eur Radiol. 22(8):1631–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shaqdan KW, Kambadakone AR, Hahn P, Sahani DV (2018) Experience with iterative reconstruction techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography in morbidly and super obese patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 42(1):124–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soenen O, Balliauw C, Oyen R, Zanca F (2017) Dose and image quality in low-dose CT for urinary stone disease: added value of automatic tube current modulation and iterative reconstruction techniques. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 174(2):242–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Andrabi Y, Pianykh O, Agrawal M, et al. (2015) Radiation dose consideration in kidney stone CT examinations: integration of iterative reconstruction algorithms with routine clinical practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204(5):1055–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Desai GS, Thabet A, Elias AYA, Sahani DV (2013) Comparative assessment of three image reconstruction techniques for image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing abdominopelvic multidetector CT examinations. Br J Radiol. 86(1021):20120161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, et al. (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol. 45(4):202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eliahou R, Hidas G, Duvdevani M, Sosna J (2010) Determination of renal stone composition with dual-energy computed tomography: an emerging application. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 31(4):315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Boll DT, Patil NA, Paulson EK, et al. (2009) Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition—pilot study 1. Radiology. 250(3):813–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matlaga BR, Kawamoto S, Fishman E (2008) Dual source computed tomography: a novel technique to determine stone composition. Urology. 72(5):1164–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stolzmann P, Kozomara M, Chuck N, et al. (2010) In vivo identification of uric acid stones with dual-energy CT: diagnostic performance evaluation in patients. Abdom Imaging. 35(5):629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, et al. (2007) Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol. 14(12):1441–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tamm EP, Le O, Liu X, et al. (2017) “How to” incorporate dual energy imaging into a high volume abdominal imaging practice. Abdom Radiol N Y. 42(3):688–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Der Kooy K, Leenen R, Seidell JC, Deurenberg P, Visser M (1993) Abdominal diameters as indicators of visceral fat: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and anthropometry. Br J Nutr. 70(01):47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations