Abstract
PURPOSE: In this prospective trial we compared ultralow dose computerized tomography reconstruction algorithms and routine low dose computerized tomography for detecting urolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 consenting adults prospectively underwent routine low dose noncontrast computerized tomography immediately followed by an ultralow dose series targeted at a 70% to 90% reduction from the routine low dose technique (sub mSv range). Ultralow dose series were reconstructed with filtered back projection, and adaptive statistical and model based iterative reconstruction techniques. Transverse (axial) and coronal images were sequentially reviewed by 3 relatively inexperienced trainees, including a radiology resident, a urology fellow and an abdominal imaging fellow. Three experienced abdominal radiologists independently reviewed the routine low dose filtered back projection images, which served as the reference standard. RESULTS: The mean effective dose for the ultralow dose scans was 0.91 mSv (median 0.82), representing a mean ± SD 78% ± 5% decrease compared to the routine low dose. Overall sensitivity and positive predictive value per stone for ultralow dose computerized tomography at a 4 mm threshold was 0.91 and 0.98, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy per patient were 0.87, 1.00, 1.00, 0.94 and 0.96, respectively. At a 4 mm threshold the sensitivity and positive predictive value per stone of the ultralow dose series for filtered back projection, and adaptive statistical and model based iterative reconstruction was 0.89 and 0.96, 0.91 and 0.98, and 0.93 and 1.00, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy per patient at the 4 mm threshold were 0.82, 1.00, 1.00, 0.91 and 0.94 for filtered back projection, 0.85, 1.00, 1.00, 0.93 and 0.95 for adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and 0.94, 1.00, 1.00, 0.97 and 0.98 for model based iterative reconstruction, respectively. Sequential review of coronal images changed the final stone reading in 13% of cases and improved diagnostic confidence in 49%. CONCLUSIONS: At a 4 mm renal calculus size threshold ultralow dose computerized tomography is accurate for detection when referenced against routine low dose series with dose reduction to below the level of a typical 2-view plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder. Slight differences were seen among the reconstruction algorithms. There was mild improvement with model based iterative reconstruction over filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Coronal images improved detection and diagnostic confidence over axial images alone.