Advertisement

Variation in Radiologic and Urologic Computed Tomography Interpretation of Urinary Tract Stone Burden: Results From the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter

Published:October 13, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.002

      Objective

      To compare the measured stone burden recorded between urologists and radiologists, and examine how these differences could potentially impact stone management. As current urologic stone surgery guideline recommendations are based on stone size, accurate stone measurements are crucial to direct appropriate treatment. This study investigated the discrepant interpretation that often exists between urologic surgeons and radiologists' estimation of patient urinary stone burden.

      Materials and Methods

      From November 2015 through August 2016, new patients prospectively enrolled into the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU) were included if they had computed tomography images available and an accompanying official radiologic report at the time of their urologist provider visit. Stone number and aggregate stone size were compared between the urologic interpretation and the corresponding radiologic reports.

      Results

      Of 219 patients who met the inclusion criteria, concordance between urologic and radiologic assessment of aggregate stone size was higher for single stone sizing (63%) compared with multiple stones (32%). Statistical significance was found in comparing the mean difference in aggregate stone size for single and multiple stones (P <.01). Over 33% of stone-containing renal units had a radiologic report with an unclear size estimation or size discrepancy that could lead to non–guideline-driven surgical management.

      Conclusion

      Significant variation exists between urologic and radiologic computed tomography interpretations of stone burden. Urologists should personally review patient imaging when considering stone surgical management. A standardized method for measuring and reporting stone parameters is needed among urologists and radiologists.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Scales C.D.
        • Smith A.C.
        • Hanley J.M.
        • Saigal C.S.
        Urologic diseases in America project. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 160-165
        • Assimos D.
        • Krambeck A.
        • Miller N.L.
        • et al.
        Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, Part I.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 1153-1160
        • Assimos D.
        • Krambeck A.
        • Miller N.L.
        • et al.
        Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, Part II.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 1161-1169
        • The American Board of Urology 2018 information for applicants and candidates. 65th Edition
        (Available at:) (Accessed September 24, 2017)
        • Suskind A.M.
        • Clemens J.Q.
        Affordable care act: implications in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2014; 15: 382
      1. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.
        (Available at:) (Accessed September 25, 2017)
        • Hirsch J.A.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Ansari S.A.
        • Manchikanti L.
        • Nicola G.N.
        MACRA 2.0: are you ready for MIPS?.
        J Neurointerv Surg. 2017; 9: 714-716
        • Chang H.C.
        • Tzou D.T.
        • Usawachintachit M.
        • et al.
        Rationale and design of the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU): a prospective observational registry to study the natural history of urolithiasis patients.
        J Endourol. 2016; 30: 1332-1338
        • Harris P.A.
        • Taylor R.
        • Thielke R.
        • Payne J.
        • Gonzalez N.
        • Conde J.G.
        Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.
        J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381
        • Huda W.
        • Ogden K.M.
        • Khorasani M.R.
        Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT.
        Radiology. 2008; 248: 995-1003
        • Coursey Moreno C.
        • Beland M.D.
        • Goldfarb S.
        • Harvin H.J.
        American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria—Acute Onset Flank Pain-Suspicion of Stone Disease (Urolithiasis).
        (1-11; Available at:)
        • Tamm E.P.
        • Silverman P.M.
        • Shuman W.P.
        Evaluation of the patient with flank pain and possible ureteral calculus.
        Radiology. 2003; 228: 319-329
        • Connolly S.S.
        • Younis C.
        • Meade W.
        • et al.
        Can computed tomography in the protocol for renal colic be interpreted by urologists?.
        BJU Int. 2004; 94: 1332-1335
        • Nasser F.S.
        • Ritsema D.F.
        • Cheney S.
        • et al.
        Reviewing radiographic images with patients: results of a trial on patient preferences, understanding, and satisfaction.
        J Endourol. 2010; 24: 2083-2091
        • Kampa R.J.
        • Ghani K.R.
        • Wahed S.
        • Patel U.
        • Anson K.M.
        Size matters: a survey of how urinary-tract stones are measured in the UK.
        J Endourol. 2005; 19: 856-860
        • Smith R.C.
        • Rosenfield A.T.
        • Choe K.A.
        • et al.
        Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography.
        Radiology. 1995; 194: 789-794
        • Metser U.
        • Ghai S.
        • Ong Y.Y.
        • Lockwood G.
        • Radomski S.B.
        Assessment of urinary tract calculi With 64-MDCT: the axial versus coronal plane.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 192: 1509-1513
        • Lin W.-C.
        • Uppot R.N.
        • Li C.-S.
        • Hahn P.F.
        • Sahani D.V.
        Value of automated coronal reformations from 64-section multidetector row computerized tomography in the diagnosis of urinary stone disease.
        J Urol. 2007; 178 (discussion 911): 907-911
        • Kadihasanoglu M.
        • Marien T.
        • Miller N.L.
        Ureteral stone diameter on computerized tomography coronal reconstructions is clinically important and under-reported.
        Urology. 2017; 102: 54-60
        • El-Mokadem I.
        • Budak M.
        • Pillai S.
        • et al.
        Progression, interobserver agreement, and malignancy rate in complex renal cysts (≥Bosniak category IIF).
        Urol Oncol. 2014; 32: 24.e21-24.e27
        • Selby M.G.
        • Vrtiska T.J.
        • Krambeck A.E.
        • et al.
        Endourology and stones quantification of asymptomatic kidney stone burden by computed tomography for predicting future symptomatic stone events.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 45-50
        • Dym R.J.
        • Duncan D.R.
        • Spektor M.
        • Cohen H.W.
        • Scheinfeld M.H.
        Renal stones on portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT: does intravenous contrast interfere with detection?.
        Abdom Imaging. 2014; 39: 526-532