Photon-Counting Detector CT for Kidney Stone Detection in Excretory Phase CT-Comparison Between Virtual Non-contrast and Virtual Non-iodine Reconstructions in a 3D Printed Kidney Phantom.

Breiding, Philipe S; Gomollon, Ana Maria Turrion; Martini, Katharina; Nakhostin, Dominik; Alkadhi, Hatem; Euler, André (2024). Photon-Counting Detector CT for Kidney Stone Detection in Excretory Phase CT-Comparison Between Virtual Non-contrast and Virtual Non-iodine Reconstructions in a 3D Printed Kidney Phantom. (In Press). Academic radiology Elsevier 10.1016/j.acra.2024.04.002

Preview

Text 1-s2.0-S1076633224002095-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (2MB) | Preview

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of contrast media subtraction and kidney stone detection between a virtual non-iodine reconstruction algorithm (VNI; PureCalcium) and a virtual non-contrast (VNC) algorithm in excretory phase photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT), using a 3D printed kidney phantom under various tube voltages and radiation doses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3D-printed kidney phantom, holding Calcium Oxalate (CaOx) and uric acid stones within contrast-enhanced calyces, was created. The calyx density mirrored the average density observed in 200 excretory phase patients (916 HU at 110 kV). Imaging was conducted on a clinical dual-source PCD-CT at 120 kV and 140 kV, with radiation doses set at 5, 10, and 15 mGy. VNI and VNC algorithms were applied. Two blinded readers evaluated the image quality, along with the degree of contrast media and kidney stone subtraction, using visual scales. Krippendorff's alpha was calculated to determine inter-reader agreement, and the Chi-squared test was employed for comparing ordinal data.

RESULTS

Reader 2 rated overall image quality higher for VNI than VNC (4.90 vs. 4.00; P < .05), while Reader 1 found no significant difference (4.96 vs. 5.00; P > .05). Substantial agreement was observed between readers for contrast media subtraction in both VNC and VNI (Krippendorff's alpha range: 0.628-0.748). Incomplete contrast media subtraction occurred more frequently with VNI for both readers (Reader 1: 29% vs. 15%; P < .05; Reader 2: 24% vs. 20%; P > .05). Uric acid and smaller stones (<5 mm) were more likely to be subtracted than CaOx and larger stones in both VNC and VNI. Overall, a higher rate of stone subtraction was noted with VNI compared to VNC (Reader 1: 22% vs. 16%; Reader 2: 25% vs. 10%; P < .05). Neither radiation dose nor tube voltage significantly influenced stone subtraction (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

VNC demonstrated greater accuracy than VNI for contrast media subtraction and kidney stone visibility. Radiation dose and tube voltage had no significant impact. Nonetheless, both algorithms still exhibited frequent incomplete contrast media subtraction and partial kidney stone subtraction.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

0 since deposited on 22 Apr 2024
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item