In vivo predictors of renal cyst pseudoenhancement at 120 kVp

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 202, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 336-342

  Patel, Jeet ^a   Davenport, Matthew S ^a   Khalatbari, Shokoufeh ^a   Cohan, Richard H ^a   Ellis, James H ^a   Platt, Joel F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Beam hardening; Enhancement; Multivariate; Pseudoenhancement; Renal cyst

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE; GADOTERIDOL;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE SUBTRACTION; IN VIVO STUDY; KIDNEY CYST; KIDNEY PARENCHYMA; KIDNEY TUMOR; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOENHANCEMENT; RENOGRAPHY; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY DISEASES, CYSTIC; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REFERENCE STANDARDS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84892741812     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.10915     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Rao PS, Alfidi RJ. The environmental density artifact: a beam-hardening effect in computed tomography. Radiology 1981; 141:223-227
2. Maki DD, Birnbaum BA, Chakraborty DP, et al. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: beam-hardening effects on CT numbers. Radiology 1999; 213:468-472
3. Birnbaum BA, Hindman N, Lee J, et al. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: influence of multidetector CT reconstruction algorithm and scanner type in phantom model. Radiology 2007; 244:767-775
4. Heneghan JP, Spielmann AL, Sheafor DH, et al. Pseudoenhancement of simple renal cysts: a comparison of single and multidetector helical CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002; 26:90-94
5. Wang ZJ, Coakley FV, Fu Y, et al. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement at multidetector CT: what are the effects of number of detectors and peak tube voltage? Radiology 2008; 248:910-916
6. Tappouni R, Kissane J, Sarwani N, et al. Pseudoenhancement of renal cysts: influence of lesion size, lesion location, slice thickness, and number of MDCT detectors. AJR 2012; 198:133-137
7. Sai V, Rakow-Pener R, Yeh BM, et al. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement at 16- and 64-detector row MDCT. Clin Imaging 2013; 37:520-525
8. Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986; 158:1-10
9. Israel GM, Bosniak MA. How I do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology 2005; 236:441-450
10. Bae KT, Heiken JP, Siegel CL, et al. Renal cysts: is attenuation artificially increased on contrast-enhanced CT images? Radiology 2000; 216:792-796
11. Coulam CH, Sheafor DH, Leder RA, et al. Evaluation of pseudoenhancement of renal cysts during contrast-enhanced CT. AJR 2000; 174:493-498
12. Abdulla C, Kalra MK, Saini S, et al. Pseudoenhancement of simulated renal cysts in a phantom using different multidetector CT scanners. AJR 2002; 179:1473-1476
13. Birnbaum BA, Maki DD, Chakraborty DP, et al. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: evaluation with an anthropomorphic body CT phantom. Radiology 2002; 225:83-90
14. Gokan T, Ohgiya Y, Munechika H, et al. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement with beam hardening effect on CT attenuation. Radiat Med 2002; 20:187-190
15. Hecht EM, Israel GM, Krinsky GA, et al. Renal masses: analysis of enhancement with signal intensity measurements versus qualitative analysis of enhancement with image subtraction for diagnosing malignancy at MR imaging. Radiology 2004; 232:373-378
16. Ho VB, Allen SF, Hood MN, Choyke PL. Renal masses: quantitative assessment of enhancement with dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 2002; 224: 695-700
17. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, et al. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 2008; 249:16-31