Dual-energy computed tomography of canine uroliths

Stephanie G. Nykamp Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Stephanie G. Nykamp in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MSc

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine whether dual-energy CT (DECT) could accurately differentiate the composition of common canine uroliths in a phantom model.

SAMPLE 30 canine uroliths with pure compositions.

PROCEDURES Each urolith was composed of ≥ 70% struvite (n = 10), urate (8), cystine (5), calcium oxalate (4), or brushite (3) as determined by standard laboratory methods performed at the Canadian Veterinary Urolith Centre. Uroliths were suspended in an agar phantom, and DECT was performed at low (80 kV) and high (140 kV) energies. The ability of low- and high-energy CT numbers, DECT number, and DECT ratio to distinguish uroliths on the basis of composition was assessed with multivariate ANOVA.

RESULTS No single DECT measure differentiated all urolith types. The DECT ratio differentiated urate uroliths from all other types of uroliths. The DECT and low-energy CT numbers were able to differentiate between 8 and 7 pairs of urolith types, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that DECT was unable to differentiate common types of canine uroliths in an in vitro model; therefore, it is unlikely to be clinically useful for determining urolith composition in vivo. Given that the primary reasons for determining urolith composition in vivo are to predict response to shock wave lithotripsy and develop a treatment plan, future research should focus on the correlation between DECT measurements and urolith fragility rather than urolith composition.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine whether dual-energy CT (DECT) could accurately differentiate the composition of common canine uroliths in a phantom model.

SAMPLE 30 canine uroliths with pure compositions.

PROCEDURES Each urolith was composed of ≥ 70% struvite (n = 10), urate (8), cystine (5), calcium oxalate (4), or brushite (3) as determined by standard laboratory methods performed at the Canadian Veterinary Urolith Centre. Uroliths were suspended in an agar phantom, and DECT was performed at low (80 kV) and high (140 kV) energies. The ability of low- and high-energy CT numbers, DECT number, and DECT ratio to distinguish uroliths on the basis of composition was assessed with multivariate ANOVA.

RESULTS No single DECT measure differentiated all urolith types. The DECT ratio differentiated urate uroliths from all other types of uroliths. The DECT and low-energy CT numbers were able to differentiate between 8 and 7 pairs of urolith types, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that DECT was unable to differentiate common types of canine uroliths in an in vitro model; therefore, it is unlikely to be clinically useful for determining urolith composition in vivo. Given that the primary reasons for determining urolith composition in vivo are to predict response to shock wave lithotripsy and develop a treatment plan, future research should focus on the correlation between DECT measurements and urolith fragility rather than urolith composition.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Nykamp (snykamp@uoguelph.ca).
  • 1. Houston DM, Moore AE. Canine and feline urolithiasis: examination of over 50,000 urolith submissions to the Canadian Veterinary Urolith Centre from 1998 to 2008. Can Vet J 2009; 50: 12631268.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Low WW, Uhl JM, Kass PH, et al. Evaluation of trends in urolith composition and characteristics of dogs with urolithiasis: 25,499 cases (1985–2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 236: 193200.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Westropp JL, Buffington CAT. Lower Urinary Tract Disorders in Cats. In: Ettinger S, Feldman E, eds. Textbook of veterinary internal medicine. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, 2009; 20802086.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Ng CS, Fuchs GJ, Streem SB. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. In: Stoller ML, Meng MV, eds. Urinary stone disease: the practical guide to medical and surgical management. Towata, NJ: Humana Press, 2007; 555569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Logarakis NF, Jewett MA, Luymes J, et al. Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2000; 163: 721725.

  • 6. Ehreth JT, Drach GW, Arnett ML, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: multicenter study of kidney and upper ureter versus middle and lower ureter treatments. J Urol 1994; 152: 13791385.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Evan AP, Coe FL, Lingeman JE, et al. Insights on the pathology of kidney stone formation. Urol Res 2005; 33: 383389.

  • 8. Williams JC Jr, Saw KC, Paterson RF, et al. Variability of renal stone fragility in shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2003; 61: 10921096.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Ansari MS, Gupta NP, Seth A, et al. Stone fragility: its therapeutic implications in shock wave lithotripsy of upper urinary tract stones. Int Urol Nephrol 2003; 35: 387392.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Richard S, Siewerdsen JH, Jaffray DA, et al. Generalized DQE analysis of radiographic and dual-energy imaging using flat-panel detectors. Med Phys 2005; 32: 13971413.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Brody WR, Butt G, Hall A, et al. A method for selective tissue and bone visualization using dual energy scanned projection radiography. Med Phys 1981; 8: 353357.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Boll DT, et al. Dual-energy multidetector CT: how does it work, what can it tell us, and when can we use it in abdominopelvic imaging? Radiographics 2010; 30: 10371055.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B. Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 1998; 159: 673675.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Mitcheson HD, Zamenhof RG, Bankoff MS, et al. Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by computerized tomography. J Urol 1983; 130: 814819.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Hillman BJ, Drach GW, Tracey P, et al. Computed tomographic analysis of renal calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984; 142: 549552.

  • 16. Demirel A, Suma S. The efficacy of non-contrast helical computed tomography in the prediction of urinary stone composition in vivo. J Int Med Res 2003; 31: 15.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Hidas G, Eliahou R, Duvdevani M, et al. Determination of renal stone composition with dual-energy CT: in vivo analysis and comparison with x-ray diffraction. Radiology 2010; 257: 394401.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Thomas C, Heuschmid M, Schilling D, et al. Urinary calculi composed of uric acid, cystine, and mineral salts: differentiation with dual-energy CT at a radiation dose comparable to that of intravenous pyelography. Radiology 2010; 257: 402409.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M, et al. Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol 2008; 43: 112119.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, et al. Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: 14411447.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Boll DT, Patil NA, Paulson EK, et al. Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition—pilot study. Radiology 2009; 250: 813820.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Qu M, Jaramillo-Alvarez G, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, et al. Urinary stone differentiation in patients with large body size using dual-energy dual-source computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 14081414.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Wang J, Qu M, Duan X, et al. Characterisation of urinary stones in the presence of iodinated contrast medium using dual-energy CT: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 25892596.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Qu M, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Leng S, et al. Dual-energy dual-source CT with additional spectral filtration can improve the differentiation of non-uric acid renal stones: an ex vivo phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 12791287.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Joseph P, Mandal AK, Singh SK, et al. Computerized tomography attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A preliminary study. J Urol 2002; 167: 19681971.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Thomas C, Patschan O, Ketelsen D, et al. Dual-energy CT for the characterization of urinary calculi: in vitro and in vivo evaluation of a low-dose scanning protocol. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 15531559.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C, et al. Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urology 2001; 58: 170173.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Zarse CA, Hameed TA, Jackson ME, et al. CT visible internal stone structure, but not Hounsfield unit value, of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) calculi predicts lithotripsy fragility in vitro. Urol Res 2007; 35: 201206.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, et al. Helical CT of urinary calculi: effect of stone composition, stone size, and scan collimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 329332.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, et al. Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int 2005; 95: 12851288.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Kijvikai K, de la Rosette JJ. Assessment of stone composition in the management of urinary stones. Nat Rev Urol 2011; 8: 8185.

  • 32. Turgut M, Unal I, Berber A, et al. The concentration of Zn, Mg and Mn in calcium oxalate monohydrate stones appears to interfere with their fragility in ESWL therapy. Urol Res 2008; 36: 3138.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Adams LG, Williams JC Jr, McAteer JA, et al. In vitro evaluation of canine and feline calcium oxalate urolith fragility via shock wave lithotripsy. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66: 16511654.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Mandhani A, Raghavendran M, Srivastava A, et al. Prediction of fragility of urinary calculi by dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Urol 2003; 170: 10971100.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Wang M, Shi Q, Wang X, et al. Prediction of outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi. Urol Res 2011; 39: 5157.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement