Digital tomosynthesis in the detection of urolithiasis: Diagnostic performance and dosimetry compared with digital radiography with MDCT as the reference standard.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of digital tomosynthesis in comparison with digital radiography in the detection of urinary stones with MDCT as the reference standard. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Fifty consecutively enrolled patients (32 men, 18 women; mean age, 51.5 years; range, 19-83 years) referred for unenhanced MDCT of the abdomen with suspicion of urinary stones also underwent digital tomosynthesis and digital radiography (anteroposterior and bladder inlet views). Images from all examinations were randomly read by three blinded radiologists. The mean effective doses for digital tomosynthesis, digital radiography, and low- and high-dose MDCT were measured on a male phantom. Free-response receiver operating characteristics and receiver operating characteristics analyses were used to compare the diagnostic performance of digital radiography with that of digital tomosynthesis. RESULTS Both types of analysis showed significantly better performance of tomosynthesis over digital radiography for all urinary stones (p < 0.05). No such improvement was found for ureteral stones. The gain in sensitivity with tomosynthesis was largest for stones between 2 and 5 mm in diameter. The mean effective dose was 0.5 mSv for digital radiography, 0.85 mSv for tomosynthesis, 2.5 mSv for low-dose MDCT, and 12.6 mSv for high-dose MDCT. CONCLUSION Use of digital tomosynthesis of the abdomen results in improved detection of urinary stones in general over digital radiography with only a slight increase in effective dose. Use of tomosynthesis, however, was not associated with major improvement in the diagnosis of ureteral stones. The technique has potential as an alternative imaging technique in the detection and follow-up of urinary stones.

[1]  P. Gevenois,et al.  Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  R C Smith,et al.  Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  W. Huda,et al.  Estimation of mean organ doses in diagnostic radiology from Rando phantom measurements. , 1984, Health physics.

[4]  C. Iselin,et al.  Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  R. Smith,et al.  Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. , 1997, Radiology.

[6]  C. Roth,et al.  Utility of the plain abdominal radiograph for diagnosing ureteral calculi. , 1985, Annals of emergency medicine.

[7]  Jean Goubau,et al.  Use of digital tomosynthesis: case report of a suspected scaphoid fracture and technique , 2008, Skeletal Radiology.

[8]  G. Schwartz,et al.  Detection of renal calculi: the value of tomography. , 1984, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[10]  Z. Koc,et al.  Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: Comparison with CT , 2007, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[11]  G. Stevenson,et al.  Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. , 2000, Radiology.

[12]  M. Nettleman,et al.  Renal colic. Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. , 1991, Archives of internal medicine.

[13]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[14]  S. Sourtzis,et al.  Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  M. Cristy,et al.  Active bone marrow distribution as a function of age in humans. , 1981, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  R C Smith,et al.  Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. , 1995, Radiology.

[17]  R. Smith,et al.  Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  Keir A B Fowler,et al.  US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. , 2002, Radiology.

[19]  T. Gasser,et al.  Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial , 2003, European Radiology.

[20]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Dual system approach to computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms. , 2006, Medical physics.

[21]  D. Katz,et al.  Unenhanced helical computed tomography for the evaluation of suspected renal colic in the adolescent population: a pilot study. , 2001, Urology.

[22]  Laurie L Fajardo,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. , 2007, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[23]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Recent advances in chest radiography. , 2006, Radiology.

[24]  D. Chakraborty,et al.  Detection of urinary stones at reduced radiation exposure: a phantom study comparing computed radiography and a low-dose digital radiography linear slit scanning system. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Santiago Martinez-Jimenez,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis of the chest for lung nodule detection: interim sensitivity results from an ongoing NIH-sponsored trial. , 2008, Medical physics.

[26]  S. Shine.  Urinary calculus: IVU vs. CT renal stone? A critically appraised topic , 2007, Abdominal Imaging.

[27]  D. DeLong,et al.  Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. , 2000, Radiology.

[28]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[29]  Patrik Rogalla,et al.  Does Ultra-Low-Dose CT With a Radiation Dose Equivalent to That of KUB Suffice to Detect Renal and Ureteral Calculi? , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[30]  James T. Dobbins,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis of the chest. , 2008, Journal of thoracic imaging.