Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Dual-energy computed tomography for the differentiation of uric acid stones: ex vivo performance evaluation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We assessed the potential of dual-energy computed tomography (CT) for the differentiation between uric acid (UA)-containing and non-UA-containing urinary stones. Forty urinary stones of 16 different compositions in two sizes (< and ≥ 5 mm) were examined in an ex vivo model. Thirty stones consisted of pure calcium oxalate (whewellite or wheddellite), calcium phosphate (apatite, brushite, or vaterite), ammonium magnesium phosphate (struvite), UA, ammonium acid urate, ammonium phosphate, sodium hydrogen urate, or cystine, and ten stones were of mixed composition (UA-sodium hydrogen urate, whewellite-urate, wheddellite-urate, whewellite-brushite, or whewellite-brushite-struvite). Scans were performed using dual-source CT in a dual-energy mode with the tubes simultaneously operating at 80 and 140 kV. Two readers analysed the data with respect to stone attenuation at each energy level. The stones were classified as UA- or non-UA-containing using manual attenuation measurements and software analysis results. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated using crystallographic stone analysis as the gold standard. Twenty-six out of 40 stones (65%) contained no UA; 14 stones (35%) contained UA. When compared with UA-containing stones, the differences in attenuation values at 80 and 140 kV were significantly (P < 0.001) higher in stones containing no UA. The software automatically mapped 39/40 stones (98%). Only one (2%) 2 mm UA-stone was missed. The software correctly classified all detected stones as UA- or non-UA-containing. The attenuation values of the missed stone were manually plotted into the analysis sheet which allowed for the correct classification of the stone (containing UA). Therefore, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the detection of UA-containing stones was 100%. Ex vivo experience indicates that differentiation between UA- and non-UA-containing stones can be accurately performed using dual-source dual-energy CT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coe FL, Evan A, Worcester E (2005) Kidney stone disease. J Clin Invest 115:2598–2608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Deveci S, Coskun M, Tekin MI, Peskircioglu L, Tarhan NC, Ozkardes H (2004) Spiral computed tomography: role in determination of chemical compositions of pure and mixed urinary stones––an in vitro study. Urology 64:237–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B (1998) Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 159:673–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams JC Jr, Saw KC, Paterson RF, Hatt EK, McAteer JA, Lingeman JE (2003) Variability of renal stone fragility in shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 61:1092–1096 (discussion 1097)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ngo TC, Assimos DG (2007) Uric Acid nephrolithiasis: recent progress and future directions. Rev Urol 9:17–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liebman SE, Taylor JG, Bushinsky DA (2007) Uric acid nephrolithiasis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 9:251–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Boulay I, Holtz P, Foley WD, White B, Begun FP (1999) Ureteral calculi: diagnostic efficacy of helical CT and implications for treatment of patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1485–1490

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, Bove P, Covey AM, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC (1998) The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol 159:735–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G, Ozkaynak C, Karaali K, Kabaalioglu A, Luleci E (1998) Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol 8:212–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C, Fischer J, Harmon W (2001) Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urology 58:170–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sheir KZ, Mansour O, Madbouly K, Elsobky E, Abdel-Khalek M (2005) Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by noncontrast spiral computerized tomography. Urol Res 33:99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, Petersilka M, Gruber K, Suss C, Grasruck M, Stierstorfer K, Krauss B, Raupach R et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A, Vachenauer R, Desbiolles L, Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Frauenfelder T, Schertler T, Husmann L et al (2006) Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 16:2739–2747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Avrin DE, Macovski A, Zatz LE (1978) Clinical application of Compton and photo-electric reconstruction in computed tomography: preliminary results. Invest Radiol 13:217–222

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, Grasruck M, Bruder H, Morhard D, Fink C, Weckbach S, Lenhard M, Schmidt B et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17:1510–1517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, Chua GT, Lingeman JE, Williams JC Jr (2000) Helical CT of urinary calculi: effect of stone composition, stone size, and scan collimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:329–332

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, Dzyubak OP, Lieske JC, Jackson ME, Williams JC Jr, McCollough CH (2007) Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol 14:441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grosjean R, Sauer B, Guerra RM, Daudon M, Blum A, Felblinger J, Hubert J (2008) Characterization of human renal stones with MDCT: advantage of dual energy and limitations due to respiratory motion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:720–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kelcz F, Joseph PM, Hilal SK (1979) Noise considerations in dual energy CT scanning. Med Phys 6:418–425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Center of Competence in Research, Computer Aided and Image Guided Medical Interventions of the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hatem Alkadhi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stolzmann, P., Scheffel, H., Rentsch, K. et al. Dual-energy computed tomography for the differentiation of uric acid stones: ex vivo performance evaluation. Urol Res 36, 133–138 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-008-0140-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-008-0140-x

Keywords

Navigation