Thank you for the kind feedback!🙂

Thank you!

You're welcome!

That's great to hear, thank you.

Thanks so much mokh les!

When measuring CT density for renal lesions, I try to make the ROI about half the size of the lesion, and to make sure there is lesion (and not renal parenchyma) in the slices above and below (to avoid volume averaging). It also depends on the size of the lesion, as renal lesions 1.5 cm or smaller are subject to pseudoenhancement. But as you point out, sometimes the density is still borderline, and in those cases I'll also factor in cyst morphology, stability, etc, when deciding if additional imaging is necessary. Hope that helps!

Perhaps there was an issue with your connection?

@@Radquarters same here

@@Radquarters I dont think it is the connection or end user error. It looks to be a video formatting error. You might have to reupload the video to KZfaq

Thanks for watching!

Thank you Sahar!

Appreciate that :)

Hi Pranvera Rama, that is definitely not a dumb question! CT attenuation value is defined as the density of a particular material expressed in HUs. On CT, you can *generally* consider attenuation and density as interchangeable. Density is a more generic term that you can use across all modalities, but attenuation is specific to CT. To answer your question, yes, on postcontrast images you could say either that the mass has increased density or that it has increased attenuation, because you are referring to the density of the iodinated contrast taken up by the mass, not the intrinsic physical density of the mass itself. To keep things simple, I often just describe a mass like this: "Mass on noncontrast images has density of 20 HU, increasing to 50 HU on postcontrast images indicating enhancement." In other words, in this scenario I'll just say whether or not the mass is enhancing, rather than add hyperdense/hyperattenuating descriptors. Does that make sense?