Journal
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 2288-2295Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2811-4
Keywords
Dual-energy CT; Renal masses; Standard enhancement measurements; Iodine quantification; Diagnostic accuracy
Ask authors/readers for more resources
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of iodine quantification and standard enhancement measurements in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. 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 chi (2) tests of contingency with histopathology or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Difference in accuracy was assessed by means of McNemar analysis. 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. Compared with standard enhancement measurements, whole-tumour iodine quantification is more accurate in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available