Detection of urolithiasis: Comparison of 100% tube exposure images reconstructed with filtered back projection and 50% tube exposure images reconstructed with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction1

摘要

Purpose: To compare images acquired with 50% tube exposure with a dual-source computed tomographic (CT) scanner and reconstructed with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) with 100% exposure images reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) for reader ability to detect stones, reader confidence, and findings outside the urinary tract. Materials and Methods: In this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study, imaging examinations in 99 patients with urolithiasis were assessed. Data from both tubes were reconstructed with FBP; data from the primary tube only were reconstructed with SAFIRE. Seven readers evaluated randomized studies for calculi in nine regions. Reader confidence was scored by using a five-point scale. Ancillary findings were noted. Nonparametric methods for clustered data were used to estimate the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves with 95% confidence intervals to test for noninferiority of 50% exposure with SAFIRE. Results: Calculi were found in 113 locations (pyelocalyceal ureter, 86; proximal ureter, seven; midureter, four; distal ureter, 15; bladder, one) and not found in 752 locations. Mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for FBP was 0.879 (range, 0.607-0.967) and for SAFIRE, 0.883 (range, 0.646-0.971; 95% confidence interval: -0.025, 0.031). The SAFIRE images were not significantly inferior to FBP images (P = .001). Reader confidence levels for images with stones were similar with FBP and SAFIRE (P = .963). For the 52 patients who had extraurinary findings, readers reported them correctly in 74.4% (271 of 364) and 72.0% (262 of 364) of cases (P = .215) for FBP and SAFIRE, respectively. For the nine patients with potentially important findings per the reference standard, the detection rates were 44% (28 of 63) and 33% (21 of 63, P = .024), respectively. For the 43 patients with unimportant or likely unimportant findings, the false detection rates were 15% (44 of 301) and 14% (43 of 301, P = .756), respectively. Conclusion: The 50% tube exposure CT images reconstructed with SAFIRE were not inferior to 100% exposure images reconstructed with FBP for diagnosis of urolithiasis, without decreases in reader confidence.