Purpose To compare same-day photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) to conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) for detection of small renal stones (≤ 3 mm). Methods Patients undergoing clinical dual-energy EID-CT for known or suspected stone disease underwent same-day research PCD-CT. Patients with greater than 10 stones and no visible stones under 3 mm were excluded. Three radiologists selected the optimal reconstruction configuration for each CT modality and created the reference standard for renal stone presence. Two other radiologists, blinded to imaging modality, independently reviewed anonymized images to detect renal stones, rating confidence in potential stones using a Likert scale (1 = Definitely present, 2 = Probably present, 3 = Questionably present, 4 = Not seen). Sensitivity and false positive detections for PCD and EID-CT were calculated. Results Twenty-one patients underwent clinical EID-CT followed by same-day PCD-CT, with the reference standard identifying 121 renal stones (mean size 2.8 ± 2.6 mm). 0.4-mm PCD-CT images were more likely to display a stone as definitely present compared to 1- or 2-mm EID-CT images (p < 0.0001). Overall sensitivity for detection of all stones was greater at PCD-CT (0.75 vs. 0.55, p < 0.05). Pooled sensitivity of stones <InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="261_2024_4781_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="15" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="19" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$\le$</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mo>≤</mo> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> 3 mm was also significantly higher at PCD-CT (0.67 vs. 0.41, p < 0.05), with false positive detections differing between readers and modalities (PCD-CT vs. EID-CT: R1—7 v. 5; R2 – 7 v. 1). Conclusion Sensitivity for renal stones was significantly higher using high spatial resolution PCD-CT vs. EID-CT, especially for stones 3 mm or less in size, which may be important for at-risk patient populations. Prospective evaluation in larger patient populations that will benefit from detection of small stones is warranted. Graphical abstract

Improved display and detection of small renal stones using photon-counting detector CT compared to conventional energy-integrating detector CT

期刊论文
发表日期：

2025年1月27日

查看全文

Andrea Esquivel,
Theodora Potretzke,
Andrea Ferrero,
Akitoshi Inoue,
Safa Hoodeshenans,
Achille Mileto,
Timothy Winfree,
Mariana Yalon,
Ashish Khandelwal,
Kishore Rajendran,
Jamison E. Thorne,
Yong S. Lee,
Aaron Potretzke,
Shuai Leng,
Cynthia H. McCollough,
Joel G. Fletcher

摘要

Purpose

To compare same-day photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) to conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) for detection of small renal stones (≤ 3 mm).

Methods

Patients undergoing clinical dual-energy EID-CT for known or suspected stone disease underwent same-day research PCD-CT. Patients with greater than 10 stones and no visible stones under 3 mm were excluded. Three radiologists selected the optimal reconstruction configuration for each CT modality and created the reference standard for renal stone presence. Two other radiologists, blinded to imaging modality, independently reviewed anonymized images to detect renal stones, rating confidence in potential stones using a Likert scale (1 = Definitely present, 2 = Probably present, 3 = Questionably present, 4 = Not seen). Sensitivity and false positive detections for PCD and EID-CT were calculated.

Results

Twenty-one patients underwent clinical EID-CT followed by same-day PCD-CT, with the reference standard identifying 121 renal stones (mean size 2.8 ± 2.6 mm). 0.4-mm PCD-CT images were more likely to display a stone as definitely present compared to 1- or 2-mm EID-CT images (p < 0.0001). Overall sensitivity for detection of all stones was greater at PCD-CT (0.75 vs. 0.55, p < 0.05). Pooled sensitivity of stones $\le$ $\leq$ 3 mm was also significantly higher at PCD-CT (0.67 vs. 0.41, p < 0.05), with false positive detections differing between readers and modalities (PCD-CT vs. EID-CT: R1—7 v. 5; R2 – 7 v. 1).

Conclusion

Sensitivity for renal stones was significantly higher using high spatial resolution PCD-CT vs. EID-CT, especially for stones 3 mm or less in size, which may be important for at-risk patient populations. Prospective evaluation in larger patient populations that will benefit from detection of small stones is warranted.

Graphical abstract