A duplex collecting system also known as duplicated collecting system in some literatures, is one of the most common congenital renal tract abnormalities to be found incidentally during evaluation of the person for some other complaints. It shows an incomplete fusion of upper and lower pole moieties which may cause a variety of complete or incomplete duplication defects of urinary collecting system [1] . While considered an anatomical variant we need to keep in mind that these duplex collecting systems may be associated with various complications like vesicoureteric reflux, obstruction or ureterocele. In this study, we are going to discuss a case of a young boy who presented with urinary difficulty, on haematological evaluation it showed renal infection. On further radiological evaluation, patient was found to have duplication collection system.

Introduction: Liver is an important constituent of the digestive tract and is involved in maintenance of the body's metabolic homeostasis. Liver cancer is a major cancer in less developed countries where 83% of worldwide incidence of new cases has been reported with China alone accounting for nearly 50% of new incident cases of liver cancer. As per an estimate about 7 Lakhs death due to hepatocellular carcinoma occur annually. Aim: To compare the imaging findings of focal hepatic lesions by dual-energy computed tomography, multi-detector computed tomography, and ultrasonography and its follow up by medical treatment/aspiration/biopsy. Methods: All individuals with suggested liver illness and undergoing liver imaging were included and all of them underwent Ultrasound, MDCT and DECT protocol. Analysis of radiological images and/or verification of the lesion type by biopsy/ aspiration, surgery, or follow-up was done. Results: Though majority of the malignancies were detected by the USG (75.0%), USG underdiagnosed malignancies in 3 of the cases. Diagnostic accuracy of USG was found to be 93.8%. Though majority of the malignancies were detected by MDCT (91.7%), MDCT undiagnosed malignancies in 1 of the cases. Diagnostic accuracy of MDCT was found to be 98.5%. All the cases with malignancies were accurately detected by the DECT (100.0%), all Benign cases were also accurately detected by DECT (100.0%). Thus, Diagnostic accuracy of DECT was found to be 100.0% with the help of iodine concentration mapping. Conclusion:In this study, we have concluded that iodine quantification using dual energy computed tomography is helpful in characterisation and follow-up after treatment of liver lesions. Thus DECT with the help of iodine quantification can be used as a highly specific and sensitive imaging modality for malignant and benign liver lesions as compared to MDCT and USG.