Dual-layer spectral detector CT: non-inferiority assessment compared to dual-source dual-energy CT in discriminating uric acid from non-uric acid renal stones ex vivo

  • Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan
  • Xinhui Duan
  • Yin Xi
  • Matthew A. Lewis
  • Margaret S. Pearle
  • Jodi A. Antonelli
  • Harold Goerne
  • Elysha M. Kolitz
  • Suhny Abbara
  • Robert E. Lenkinski
  • Julia R. Fielding
  • John R. Leyendecker
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the non-inferiority of dual-layer spectral detector CT (SDCT) compared to dual-source dual-energy CT (dsDECT) in discriminating uric acid (UA) from non-UA stones.

Methods

Fifty-seven extracted urinary calculi were placed in a cylindrical phantom in a water bath and scanned on a SDCT scanner (IQon, Philips Healthcare) and second- and third-generation dsDECT scanners (Somatom Flash and Force, Siemens Healthcare) under matched scan parameters. For SDCT data, conventional images and virtual monoenergetic reconstructions were created. A customized 3D growing region segmentation tool was used to segment each stone on a pixel-by-pixel basis for statistical analysis. Median virtual monoenergetic ratios (VMRs) of 40/200, 62/92, and 62/100 for each stone were recorded. For dsDECT data, dual-energy ratio (DER) for each stone was recorded from vendor-specific postprocessing software (Syngo Via) using the Kidney Stones Application. The clinical reference standard of X-ray diffraction analysis was used to assess non-inferiority. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess diagnostic performance of detecting UA stones.

Results

Six pure UA, 47 pure calcium-based, 1 pure cystine, and 3 mixed struvite stones were scanned. All pure UA stones were correctly separated from non-UA stones using SDCT and dsDECT (AUC = 1). For UA stones, median VMR was 0.95–0.99 and DER 1.00–1.02. For non-UA stones, median VMR was 1.4–4.1 and DER 1.39–1.69.

Conclusion

SDCT spectral reconstructions demonstrate similar performance to those of dsDECT in discriminating UA from non-UA stones in a phantom model.

Keywords

Dual-energy CT Spectral CT Urolithiasis Uric acid Material separation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study received financial support from Philips Healthcare.

Conflict of interest

An institutional research agreement exists between UT Southwestern Medical Center and both Philips Healthcare and Siemens Healthcare. Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan, Xinhui Duan, Yin Xi, Matthew A. Lewis, Margaret S. Pearle, Jodi A. Antonelli, Harold Goerne, Elysha M. Kolitz, Suhny Abbara, Robert E. Lenkinski, Julia R. Fielding, and John R. Leyendecker declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

Human and animal rights

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

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62:160–165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uribarri J, Oh MS, Carroll HJ (1989) The first kidney stone. Ann Intern Med 111:1006–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morgan MS, Pearle MS (2016) Medical management of renal stones. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 352:i52Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newhouse JH, Prien EL, Amis ES Jr, Dretler SP, Pfister RC (1984) Computed tomographic analysis of urinary calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol 142:545–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C, Fischer J, Harmon W (2001) Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urology 58:170–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M, et al. (2008) Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol 43:112–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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. Radiology 250:813–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 205:1203–1207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 37:37–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ananthakrishnan L, Rajiah P, Ahn R, et al. (2017) Spectral detector CT-derived virtual non-contrast images: comparison of attenuation values with unenhanced CT. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(3):702–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blackledge MD, Collins DJ, Koh DM, Leach MO (2016) Rapid development of image analysis research tools: bridging the gap between researcher and clinician with pyOsiriX. Comput Biol Med 69:203–212CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG (2015) Dual- and multi-energy CT: principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. Radiology 276:637–653CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lombardo F, Bonatti M, Zamboni GA, et al. (2017) Uric acid versus non-uric acid renal stones: in vivo differentiation with spectral CT. Clin Radiol 72:490–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hidas G, Eliahou R, Duvdevani M, et al. (2010) Determination of renal stone composition with dual-energy CT: in vivo analysis and comparison with x-ray diffraction. Radiology 257:394–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siener R, Buchholz N, Daudon M, et al. (2016) quality assessment of urinary stone analysis: results of a multicenter study of laboratories in Europe. PloS ONE 11:e0156606CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xinhui Duan
    • 2
  • Yin Xi
    • 2
  • Matthew A. Lewis
    • 2
  • Margaret S. Pearle
    • 2
  • Jodi A. Antonelli
    • 2
  • Harold Goerne
    • 3
  • Elysha M. Kolitz
    • 2
  • Suhny Abbara
    • 2
  • Robert E. Lenkinski
    • 2
  • Julia R. Fielding
    • 2
  • John R. Leyendecker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.UT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  3. 3.IMSS Western National Medical CenterGuadalajaraMexico

Personalised recommendations