Evaluation of pseudoenhancement of renal cysts during contrast-enhanced CT

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 174, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 493-498

  Coulam, Curtis H ^a   Sheafor, Douglas H ^a   Leder, Richard A ^a   Paulson, Erik K ^a   DeLong, David M ^a   Nelson, Rendon C ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; KIDNEY CYST; MALE; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 0033956567     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.174.2.1740493     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Tada S, Yamagishi J, Kobayashi H, Hata Y, Kobari T. The incidence of simple renal cyst by computed tomography. Clin Radiol 1983;34:437-439
2. Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986;158:1-10
3. McClennan BL, Stanley RJ, Melson GL, Levitt RG, Sagel SS. CT of the renal cyst: is cyst aspiration necessary? AJR 1979;:133:671-675
4. Sagel SS, Stanley RJ, Levitt RG, Geisse G. Computed tomography of the kidney. Radiology 1977; 124:359-370
5. Boskiak MA, Rofsky NM. Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 1996;198:638-641
6. Siegel CL, Fisher AJ, Bennett HF. Interobserver variability in determining enhancement of renal masses on helical CT. AJR 1999;172:1207-1212
7. Roa PS, Alfidi RJ. The environmental density artifact: a beam-hardening effect in computed tomography. Radiology 1981;141:223-227
8. Young SW, Muller HH, Marshall WH Computed tomography: beam hardening and environmental density artifact. Radiology 1983;148:279-283
9. Di Chiro G, Brooks RA, Dubal L, Chew E. The apical artifact: elevated attenuation values toward the apex of the skull. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1978;2:65-70
10. Maki DD, Birnbaum BA, Chakraborty DP, Jacobs JE, Carvalho BM, Herman GT, Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: beam hardenng effects on CT numbers. Radiology 1999:213:468-472
11. Brooks RA, Di Chiro G. Beam-hardening in X-ray reconstructive tomography. Phys Med Biol 1976;21:390-398
12. Miller MD. Artifacts. In: Morgan CL, ed. Basic principles of computed tomography. Baltimore: University Press, 1983: 285-286
13. Xatz LM, Alvarez RE. An inaccuracy in computed tomography: the energy dependence of CT values. Radiology 1977;124:91-97
14. Birnbaum BA, Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, Lubat E. Gordon RB. Observations on the growth of renal neoplasms. Radiology 1990;176:695-701
15. Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE, Ramchandani P. Multiphasic renal CT: comparison of renal mass enhancement during the corticomedullary and nephrographic phases. Radiology 1996;200:753-758
16. Silverman SG, Lee BY, Seltzer SE, Bloom DA, Corless CL, Adams DF. Small (≥3 cm) renal masses: correlation of spiral CT features and pathologic findings. AJR 1994;163:597-605
17. Polacin A, Kalender WA, Marchal G. Evaluation of section sensitivity profiles and image noise in spiral CT. Radiology 1992;185:29-35
18. Brink JA, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Sagel SS, DiCroce J, Vannier MW. Spiral CT: decreased spatial resolution in vivo due to broadening of section-sensitivity profile. Radiology 1992;185:469-474
19. Goldberg MA, Mayo-Smith WW, Papanicolaou N, Fischman AJ, Lee MJ. FDG PET characterization of renal masses: preliminary experience. Clin Radiol 1997;52:510-515
20. Kreft BP, Muller-Miny H, Sommer T, et al. Diagnostic value of MR imaging in comparison to CT in the detection and differential diagnosis of renal masses: ROC analysis. Eur Radiol 1997; 7:542-547
21. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Kroeker MA. MacMahon RG, Greenberg HM. Renal lesions: controlled comparison between CT and 1.5-T MR imaging with nonenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced fat-suppressed spin-echo and breath-hold FLASH techniques. Radiology 1992;182:425-430