Background: Non-contrast computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT KUB) is the investigation of choice for renal colic; however, radiation exposure can be a concern. Aims: The study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of low dose (LD) and ultra-low dose (ULD) CT of the urinary tract for detection of urinary tract stones in patients with renal colic. Methods: A Cochrane style systematic review of the literature from 1995 to 2017 was carried out. Literature search and data extraction were conducted by 2 reviewers. Specificity and sensitivity values were calculated for LD (<3.5 mean radiation dose [mSv]) and ULD (<1.9 mSv) CT separately. Results: A total of 12 studies were included following screening. A total of 1,529 patients were included in the review (475 in the LD group and 1,054 in the ULD group). Using standard dose CT KUB as the reference standard, the sensitivity of LD CT KUB ranged from 90 to 98% and specificity from 88 to 100%. The sensitivity of ULD CT KUB ranged from 72 to 99% and the specificity ranged from 86 to 100%. The diagnostic accuracy for LD CT was 94.3% and for ULD CT was 95.5%. Conclusions: LD and ULD CT KUB provide effective methods of identifying urinary tract stones. High diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity are maintained despite significant radiation dose reduction in comparison to standard dose CT.

Keywords:
Stones, Computed tomography, Urolithiasis, Non-contrasted computed tomography scan of the kidney, ureter, and bladder, Radiation safety, Renal colic
1.
NICE. Renal or Ureteric Colic-Acute-Summary. https://cks.nice.org.uk/renal-or-ureteric-colic-acute#!topicsummary (accessed April 2017).
2.
European Urological Association Guidelines on Urolithiasis. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/22-Urolithiasis_LR_full.pdf (accessed April 2017).
3.
Surgical Management of stones: American Urological Society/Endourology Guideline. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/surgical-management-of-stones#x3160 (accessed April 2017).
4.
Bultitude M, Rees J: Management of renal colic. BMJ 2012; 345:e5499.
5.
Stewart A, Joyce A: Modern management of renal colic. Trends Urol Mens Health 2008; 13: 14–17.
7.
National Research Council: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, The National Academies Press, 2006, p 422.
8.
McLaughlin PD, Murphy KP, Hayes SA, Carey K, Sammon J, Crush L, O’Neill F, Normoyle B, McGarrigle AM, Barry JE, Maher MM: Non-contrast CT at comparable dose to an abdominal radiograph in patients with acute renal colic; impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and diagnostic performance. Insights Imaging 2014; 5: 217–230.
9.
Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA: Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine -effective dose from dose-length product. -Radiology 2010; 257: 158–166.
10.
Ketelslegers E, Van Beers BE: Urinary calculi: improved detection and characterization with thin-slice multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 161–165.
11.
Gervaise A, Gervaise-Henry C, Pernin M, Naulet P, Junca-Laplace C, Lapierre-Combes M: How to perform low-dose computed tomography for renal colic in clinical practice. Diagn Interv Imaging 2015; 97: 393–400.
12.
von Falck C, Galanski M, Shin HO: Informatics in radiology: sliding-thin-slab averaging for improved depiction of low-contrast lesions with radiation dose savings at thin-section CT. Radiographics 2010; 30: 317–326.
13.
Rob S, Bryant T, Wilson I, Somani B: Ultra-low-dose, low-dose, and standard-dose CT of the kidney, ureters, and bladder: is there a difference? Results from a systematic review of the literature. Clin Radiol 2017;72: 11–15.
14.
Xiang H, Chan M, Brown V, Huo YR, Chan L, Ridley L: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of low-dose computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder for urolithiasis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017; 61: 582–590.
15.
The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 2008. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook (accessed January 2018).
16.
Mulkens TH, Daineffe S, De Wijngaert R, Bellinck P, Leonard A, Smet G, Termote JL: Urinary stone disease: comparison of standard-dose and low-dose with 4D MDCT tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 553–562.
17.
Pooler BD, Lubner MG, Kim DH, Ryckman EM, Sivalingam S, Tang J, Nakada SY, Chen GH, Pickhardt PJ: Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard. J Urol 2014; 192: 1433–1439.
18.
Wang J, Kang T, Arepalli C, Barrett S, O’Connell T, Louis L, Nicolaou S, McLaughlin P: Half-dose non-contrast CT in the investigation of urolithiasis: image quality improvement with third-generation integrated circuit CT detectors. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40: 1255–1262.
19.
Huang GO, Engebretsen SR, Smith JC, Wallner CL, Culpepper DJ, Creech JD, Ng CC, Mai AT, Chung CS, Olgin G, Arnold DC 2nd, Baldwin DD: Detection of uric acid stones in the ureter using low- and conventional-dose computed tomography. Urology 2014; 84: 571–574.
20.
Hur J, Park SB, Lee JB, Park HJ, Chang IH, Kwon JK, Kim YS: CT for evaluation of urolithiasis: image quality of ultralow-dose (Sub mSv) CT with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction and diagnostic performance of low-dose CT with statistical iterative reconstruction. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40: 2432–2440.
21.
Kwon JK, Chang IH, Moon YT, Lee JB, Park HJ, Park SB: Usefulness of low-dose nonenhanced computed tomography with iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: diagnostic performance and agreement between the urologist and the radiologist. Urology 2015; 85: 531–538.
22.
Glazer DI, Maturen KE, Cohan RH, Davenport MS, Ellis JH, Knoepp US, Weadock WJ, Platt JF: Assessment of 1 mSv urinary tract stone CT with model-based iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 1230–1235.
23.
Malkawi IM, Han E, Atalla CS, Santucci RA, O’neil B, Wynberg JB: Low-dose (10%) computed tomography may be inferior to standard-dose CT in the evaluation of acute renal colic in the emergency room setting. J Endourol 2016; 30: 493–496.
24.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003; 326: 41–44.
25.
Moore CL, Daniels B, Ghita M, Gunabushanam G, Luty S, Molinaro AM, Singh D, Gross CP: Accuracy of reduced-dose computed tomography for ureteral stones in emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 2015; 65: 189–198.e2.
26.
Meagher T, Sukumar VP, Collingwood J, Crawley T, Schofield D, Henson J, Lakin K, Connolly D, Giles J: Low dose computed tomography in suspected acute renal colic. Clin Radiol 2001; 56: 873–876.
27.
Fracchia JA, Panagopoulos G, Katz RJ, Armenakas N, Sosa RE, DeCorato DR: Adequacy of low dose computed tomography in patients presenting with acute urinary colic. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1242–1246.
28.
Twahirwa N, Rees J: Evaluation of suspected renal colic patients with unenhanced low-dose multi-detector computed tomography. East Afr Med J 2009; 86: 190–195.
29.
Hamm M, Knopfle E, Wartenberg S, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Harzmann R: Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol 2002; 167: 1687–1691.
30.
Kim BS, Hwang IK, Choi YW, Namkung S, Kim HC, Hwang WC, Choi KM, Park JK, Han TI, Kang W: Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study. Acta Radiol 2005; 46: 756–763.
31.
Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, Hein E, Hamm B, Romano V, Rogalla P: Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30: 44–50.
32.
Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, Schmidlin FR, Iselin CE, Becker CD: Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 927–933.
33.
Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA: Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 305–311.
34.
Fontarensky M, Alfidja A, Perignon R, Schoenig A, Perrier C, Mulliez A, Guy L, Boyer L: Reduced radiation dose with model-based iterative reconstruction versus standard dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT for diagnosis of acute renal colic. Radiology 2015; 276: 156–166.
35.
Spielmann AL, Heneghan JP, Lee LJ, Yoshizumi T, Nelson RC: Decreasing the radiation dose for renal stone CT: A feasibility study of single- and multidetector CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 1058–1062.
36.
Faiq S, Naz N, Zaidi F, Rizvi A: Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and x-ray KUB in ureteric colic taking CT as gold standard. Int J Endorsing Health Sci Res 2014; 2.
37.
Dixon AK, Dendy P: Spiral CT: how much does radiation dose matter? Lancet 1998; 352: 1082–1093.
38.
Brenner DJ, Elliston CD: Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004; 232: 735–738.
39.
Katz S, Saluja S, Brink JA, Forman HP: Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 1120–1124.
40.
Gilbert ES: Ionising radiation and cancer risks: what have we learned from epidemiology? Int J Radiat Biol 2009; 85: 467–482.
41.
Edelman RR, Flanagan O, Grodzki D, Giri S, Gupta N, Koktzoglou I: Projection MR imaging of peripheral arterial calcifications. Magn Reson Med 2015; 73: 1939–1945.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.