Abstract Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of iodine quantification and standard enhancement measurements in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. Materials and methods The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study conducted from data found in institutional patient databases and archives. Seventy-two renal masses were characterised as enhancing or nonenhancing using standard enhancement measurements (in HU) and iodine quantification (in mg/ml). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were calculated from χ2 tests of contingency with histopathology or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Difference in accuracy was assessed by means of McNemar analysis. Results Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy for standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were 77.7 %, 100 %, 100 %, 81.8 %, 89 % and 100 %, 94.4 %, 94.7, 100 % and 97 %, respectively. The McNemar analysis showed that the accuracy of iodine quantification was significantly better (P<0.001) than that of standard enhancement measurements.Conclusion Compared with standard enhancement measurements, whole-tumour iodine quantification is more accurate in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. Key Points • Enhancement of renal lesions is important when differentiating benign from malignant tumours. • Dual-energy CT offers measurement of iodine uptake rather than mere enhancement values. • Whole-tumour iodine quantification seems more accurate than standard CT enhancement measurements.

Distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses with dual-source dual-energy CT: iodine quantification versus standard enhancement measurements.

ASCENTI, Giorgio;MILETO, ACHILLE;GAETA, Michele;BLANDINO, Alfredo;SCRIBANO, Emanuele;MAZZIOTTI, Silvio
2013-01-01

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of iodine quantification and standard enhancement measurements in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. Materials and methods The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study conducted from data found in institutional patient databases and archives. Seventy-two renal masses were characterised as enhancing or nonenhancing using standard enhancement measurements (in HU) and iodine quantification (in mg/ml). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were calculated from χ2 tests of contingency with histopathology or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Difference in accuracy was assessed by means of McNemar analysis. Results Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy for standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were 77.7 %, 100 %, 100 %, 81.8 %, 89 % and 100 %, 94.4 %, 94.7, 100 % and 97 %, respectively. The McNemar analysis showed that the accuracy of iodine quantification was significantly better (P<0.001) than that of standard enhancement measurements.Conclusion Compared with standard enhancement measurements, whole-tumour iodine quantification is more accurate in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. Key Points • Enhancement of renal lesions is important when differentiating benign from malignant tumours. • Dual-energy CT offers measurement of iodine uptake rather than mere enhancement values. • Whole-tumour iodine quantification seems more accurate than standard CT enhancement measurements.
2013
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/2556444
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 17
  • Scopus 119
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 106
social impact