» Articles » PMID: 39037610

Comparison of Automated Kidney Stone Size Measurement and Volumetry in Photon Counting CT Compared to 3rd Generation Dual Energy CT and Physically Measurements - an Ex Vivo Study

Overview
Journal World J Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2024 Jul 22
PMID 39037610
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: This ex vivo study aimed to compare a newly developed dual-source photon-counting CT (PCCT) with a 3rd generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DECT) for the detection and measurement (stone lengths and volumetrics) of urinary stones.

Methods: 143 urinary stones with a known geometry were physically measured and defined as reference values. Next, urinary stones were placed in an anthropomorphic abdomen-model and were scanned with DECT and PCCT. Images were read by two experienced examiners and automatically evaluated using a specific software.

Results: DECT and PCCT showed a high sensitivity for manual stone detection of 97.9% and 94.4%, and for automatic detection of 93.0% and 87.4%, respectively. Compared to that uric acid and xanthine stones were recognized slightly worse by DECT and PCCT with manual stone detection (93.3% and 82.2%), and with automatic detection (77.8% and 60.0%). All other stone entities were completely recognized. By comparing the maximum diameter of the reference value and DECT, Pearson-correlation was 0.96 (p < 0.001) for manual and 0.97 (p < 0.001) for automatic measurement, and for PCCT it was 0.94 (p < 0.001) for manual and 0.97 (p < 0.001) for automatic measurements. DECT and PCCT can also reliably determine volume manually and automatically with a Pearson-correlation of 0.99 (p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusion: Both CTs showed comparable results in stone detection, length measurement and volumetry compared to the reference values. Automatic measurement tends to underestimate the maximum diameter. DECT proved to be slightly superior in the recognition of xanthine and uric acid stones.

References
1.
Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, Kohrmann K, Alken P . Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol. 2003; 44(6):709-13. DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00415-9. View

2.
Dwyer M, Krambeck A, Bergstralh E, Milliner D, Lieske J, Rule A . Temporal trends in incidence of kidney stones among children: a 25-year population based study. J Urol. 2012; 188(1):247-52. PMC: 3482509. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.03.021. View

3.
Curhan G . Epidemiology of stone disease. Urol Clin North Am. 2007; 34(3):287-93. PMC: 2693870. DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2007.04.003. View

4.
Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G . Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191(2):396-401. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3414. View

5.
Pearle M, Goldfarb D, Assimos D, Curhan G, Denu-Ciocca C, Matlaga B . Medical management of kidney stones: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2014; 192(2):316-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.006. View