| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Charleroi,
Hôpital Civil de Charleroi, 92 blvd. Janson, B-6000-Charleroi,
Belgium.
2 Statistical Unit, Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Biologie Humaine
et Nucléaire, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels,
Belgium.
3 Department of Radiology, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de
Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
OBJECTIVE. This study is designed to assess the intraobserver and interobserver agreements and the diagnostic performances of low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) in patients with suspected renal colic.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS. The study included 106 patients who underwent unenhanced MDCT with 4 x 2.5 mm collimation, 120 kVp, 30 mAs, and, if necessary, additional focused acquisitions at 60 or 120 mAs on areas with an equivocal ureteral stone or with significant image noise. The effective radiation dose was computer-simulated with software based on the Monte Carlo model and International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations. CT scans were archived and independently reviewed by three radiologists during two interpretation sessions on a workstation with three dimensions functions. Intraobserver and interobserver agreements were calculated with the kappa statistics. Accuracy for detection of ureteral stone on low-dose MDCT was calculated by comparison with combined clinical (stone passage), surgical (stone retrieval, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy), biologic (urinalysis, urine culture), and other imaging (excretory urography, standard-dose MDCT, follow-up sonography, and abdominal radiography) findings or by evidence for an alternative diagnosis.
RESULTS. Ureteral stones were present in 38 (36%) of 106 patients. Thirty-six of 38 ureteral stones were detected by low-dose MDCT. From reviewer to reviewer, the number of true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative findings ranged, respectively, from 34 to 36, 1 to 4, 64 to 68, and 2 to 4. The corresponding sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 89.5% to 94.7%, from 94.1% to 100%, and from 93.4% to 98.1%, respectively. The intraobserver and interobserver agreements were excellent, with kappa values ranging from 0.87 to 0.98. In 13 patients, an alternative diagnosis explaining the patient's symptoms was proposed by all reviewers using images obtained at 30 mAs. No additional or alternative diagnosis was found at standard dose. At 30 mAs, the mean effective dose was 1.2 mSv in men and 1.9 mSv in women. Additional acquisitions at 60 mAs, all focused on the lower pelvis, were acquired in 20 patients, but the corresponding images were needed by the reviewers for only six of them. The acquisitions at 60 mAs were responsible for an additional mean effective dose of 0.5 in men and 0.8 mSv in women.
CONCLUSION. Our study shows that low-dose unenhanced MDCT is appropriate for the diagnosis of ureteral stones, and that it provides excellent intraobserver and interobserver agreements and does not obscure alternative diagnoses.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Seo, K. H. Lee, H. J. Kim, K. Kim, S.-B. Kang, S. Y. Kim, and Y. H. Kim Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis With Sliding Slab Ray-Sum Interpretation of Low-Dose Unenhanced CT and Standard-Dose IV Contrast-Enhanced CT Scans Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2009; 193(1): 96 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. W. Ciaschini, E. M. Remer, M. E. Baker, M. Lieber, and B. R. Herts Urinary Calculi: Radiation Dose Reduction of 50% and 75% at CT--Effect on Sensitivity Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Karmazyn, D. P. Frush, K. E. Applegate, C. Maxfield, M. D. Cohen, and R. P. Jones CT with a Computer-Simulated Dose Reduction Technique for Detection of Pediatric Nephroureterolithiasis: Comparison of Standard and Reduced Radiation Doses Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 143 - 149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Park, B. H. Yi, H. K. Lee, Y. H. Kim, G. J. Kim, and H. C. Kim Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Ureteral Calculi Using Sonography as an Initial Diagnostic Tool: How Can We Improve Diagnostic Accuracy? J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2008; 27(10): 1441 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K Xafis, G Thalmann, L M Benneker, C Stoupis, D J Buggy, H Zimmermann, and A K Exadaktylos Forget the blood, not the stone! Microhaematuria in acute urolithiasis and the role of early CT scanning Emerg. Med. J., October 1, 2008; 25(10): 640 - 644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Niemann, T. Kollmann, and G. Bongartz Diagnostic Performance of Low-Dose CT for the Detection of Urolithiasis: A Meta-Analysis Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 396 - 401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S J Freeman and H Sells Investigation of loin pain Imaging, March 1, 2008; 20(1): 38 - 56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Richenberg Haematuria Imaging, March 1, 2008; 20(1): 57 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Patel, D. L. Reede, D. S. Katz, R. Subramaniam, and J. K. Amorosa Imaging the Pregnant Patient for Nonobstetric Conditions: Algorithms and Radiation Dose Considerations RadioGraphics, November 1, 2007; 27(6): 1705 - 1722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Memarsadeghi, C. Schaefer-Prokop, M. Prokop, T. H. Helbich, C. C. Seitz, I. M. Noebauer-Huhmann, and G. Heinz-Peer Unenhanced MDCT in Patients with Suspected Urinary Stone Disease: Do Coronal Reformations Improve Diagnostic Performance? Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2007; 189(2): W60 - W64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Bohy, V. de Maertelaer, A. Roquigny, C. Keyzer, D. Tack, and P. A. Gevenois Multidetector CT in Patients Suspected of Having Lumbar Disk Herniation: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Simulated Low-Dose Techniques Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 524 - 531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.-A. Poletti, A. Platon, O. T. Rutschmann, F. R. Schmidlin, C. E. Iselin, and C. D. Becker Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose CT Protocol in Patients with Clinically Suspected Renal Colic Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 927 - 933. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Mulkens, S. Daineffe, R. De Wijngaert, P. Bellinck, A. Leonard, G. Smet, and J.-L. Termote Urinary Stone Disease: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Low-Dose with 4D MDCT Tube Current Modulation Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 553 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A S Lowe and C L Kay Recent developments in CT: a review of the clinical applications and advantages of multidetector computed tomography Imaging, June 1, 2006; 18(2): 62 - 67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. I. Katz, S. Saluja, J. A. Brink, and H. P. Forman Radiation Dose Associated with Unenhanced CT for Suspected Renal Colic: Impact of Repetitive Studies. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 1120 - 1124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. Hurwitz, T. Yoshizumi, R. E. Reiman, P. C. Goodman, E. K. Paulson, D. P. Frush, G. Toncheva, G. Nguyen, and L. Barnes Radiation Dose to the Fetus from Body MDCT During Early Gestation. Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2006; 186(3): 871 - 876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Tack, P. Bohy, I. Perlot, V. De Maertelaer, O. Alkeilani, S. Sourtzis, and P. A. Gevenois Suspected Acute Colon Diverticulitis: Imaging with Low-Dose Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 189 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S J Freeman and H Sells Investigation of loin pain Imaging, August 1, 2005; 17(1): 19 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Richenberg and P Thompson Haematuria Imaging, August 1, 2005; 17(1): 34 - 43. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Memarsadeghi, G. Heinz-Peer, T. H. Helbich, C. Schaefer-Prokop, G. Kramer, M. Scharitzer, and M. Prokop Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT in Patients Suspected of Having Urinary Stone Disease: Effect of Section Width on Diagnosis Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 530 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Kalra, M. M. Maher, R. V. D'Souza, S. Rizzo, E. F. Halpern, M. A. Blake, and S. Saini Detection of Urinary Tract Stones at Low-Radiation-Dose CT with Z-Axis Automatic Tube Current Modulation: Phantom and Clinical Studies Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 523 - 529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Katz, M. Jain, M. J. Lane, E. M. Meiner, S. Bhalla, C. O. Menias, and C. M. Rucker Invited Commentary * Authors' Response RadioGraphics, October 1, 2004; 24(suppl_1): S28 - S33. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. L. Aquino and A. J. Fischman Does Whole-Body 2-[18F]-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography Have an Advantage Over Thoracic Positron Emission Tomography for Staging Patients With Lung Cancer? Chest, September 1, 2004; 126(3): 755 - 760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Keyzer, D. Tack, V. de Maertelaer, P. Bohy, P. A. Gevenois, and D. Van Gansbeke Acute Appendicitis: Comparison of Low-Dose and Standard-Dose Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 164 - 172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Mullins, M. H. Lev, P. Bove, C. E. O'Reilly, S. Saini, J. T. Rhea, J. H. Thrall, G. J. Hunter, L. M. Hamberg, and R. G. Gonzalez Comparison of Image Quality Between Conventional and Low-Dose Nonenhanced Head CT AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2004; 25(4): 533 - 538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Tack, V. De Maertelaer, and P. A. Gevenois Dose Reduction in Multidetector CT Using Attenuation-Based Online Tube Current Modulation Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2003; 181(2): 331 - 334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. F. Rogers Low-Dose CT: How Are We Doing? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 303 - 303. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Katz, N. Venkataramanan, S. Napel, and F. G. Sommer Can Low-Dose Unenhanced Multidetector CT Be Used for Routine Evaluation of Suspected Renal Colic? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 313 - 315. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
