TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of dual-energy CT postprocessing protocol for the detection of gouty arthritis and quantification of tophi in patients presenting with podagra
T2 - Comparison with ultrasound
AU - Strobl, Sylvia
AU - Kremser, Christian
AU - Taljanovic, Mihra
AU - Gruber, Johann
AU - Stofferin, Hannes
AU - Bellmann-Weiler, Rosa
AU - Klauser, Andrea Sabine
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Roentgen Ray Society.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Objective. The objective of our study was to compare ultrasound (US) tophus and monosodium urate (MSU) deposit detection and US tophus size in the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) 1 joint with dual-energy CT (DECT) using two DECT postprocessing protocols in patients presenting with podagra. Subjects and Methods. Seventy-five consecutive patients with podagra (66 men and nine women; mean age, 65.6 years; age range, 33-88 years) and 75 control subjects with MTP 1 joint osteoarthritis (49 men and 26 women; mean age, 63.0 years; age range, 35- 87 years) prospectively underwent US and DECT between 2016 and 2018 to assess the MTP 1 joint. Two Syngovia postprocessing DECT protocols with different minimum attenuation thresholds of 150 HU (DECT 150 protocol) versus 120 HU (DECT 120 protocol) and the same maximum attenuation threshold (500 HU) and constant kilovoltage setting of tubes A and B at 80 and 140 kVp were evaluated. Interobserver variability of the two DECT protocols was calculated and compared with that of US. Results. The postprocessing DECT 150 protocol was positive for tophus detection in 55 of 75 patients (73.3%) with podagra, whereas the postprocessing DECT 120 protocol detected MSU deposits in all 75 patients (100%). Tophus size assessed using the DECT 120 protocol showed an improved correlation with tophus size detected on US (p < 0.01). Interobserver variability of DECT was improved when using the DECT 120 protocol (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The postprocessing DECT 120 protocol enables improved visualization of MSU deposits and provides more accurate information about tophus size that better correlates with tophus size on US compared with the standard postprocessing DECT 150 protocol.
AB - Objective. The objective of our study was to compare ultrasound (US) tophus and monosodium urate (MSU) deposit detection and US tophus size in the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) 1 joint with dual-energy CT (DECT) using two DECT postprocessing protocols in patients presenting with podagra. Subjects and Methods. Seventy-five consecutive patients with podagra (66 men and nine women; mean age, 65.6 years; age range, 33-88 years) and 75 control subjects with MTP 1 joint osteoarthritis (49 men and 26 women; mean age, 63.0 years; age range, 35- 87 years) prospectively underwent US and DECT between 2016 and 2018 to assess the MTP 1 joint. Two Syngovia postprocessing DECT protocols with different minimum attenuation thresholds of 150 HU (DECT 150 protocol) versus 120 HU (DECT 120 protocol) and the same maximum attenuation threshold (500 HU) and constant kilovoltage setting of tubes A and B at 80 and 140 kVp were evaluated. Interobserver variability of the two DECT protocols was calculated and compared with that of US. Results. The postprocessing DECT 150 protocol was positive for tophus detection in 55 of 75 patients (73.3%) with podagra, whereas the postprocessing DECT 120 protocol detected MSU deposits in all 75 patients (100%). Tophus size assessed using the DECT 120 protocol showed an improved correlation with tophus size detected on US (p < 0.01). Interobserver variability of DECT was improved when using the DECT 120 protocol (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The postprocessing DECT 120 protocol enables improved visualization of MSU deposits and provides more accurate information about tophus size that better correlates with tophus size on US compared with the standard postprocessing DECT 150 protocol.
KW - Dual-energy CT
KW - Foot
KW - Gouty arthritis
KW - Ultrasound
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075814374&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075814374&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2214/AJR.19.21404
DO - 10.2214/AJR.19.21404
M3 - Article
C2 - 31553656
AN - SCOPUS:85075814374
SN - 0361-803X
VL - 213
SP - 1315
EP - 1323
JO - American Journal of Roentgenology
JF - American Journal of Roentgenology
IS - 6
ER -