Article

Effect of dual vascular input functions on CT perfusion parameter values and reproducibility in liver tumors and normal liver.

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA.
Journal of computer assisted tomography (Impact Factor: 1.38). 07/2012; 36(4):388-93. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e318256b1e2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the impact on absolute values and reproducibility of adding portal venous (PV) to arterial input functions in computed tomographic perfusion (CTp) evaluations of liver tumors and normal liver.
Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained; the study complied with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. Computed tomographic perfusion source data sets, obtained from 7 patients (containing 9 liver tumors) on 2 occasions, 2 to 7 days apart, were analyzed by deconvolution modeling using dual ("Liver" protocol: PV and aorta) and single ("Body" protocol: aorta only) vascular inputs. Identical tumor, normal liver, aortic and, where applicable, PV regions of interest were used in corresponding analyses to generate tissue blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), mean transit time (MTT), and permeability (PS) values. Test-retest variability was assessed by within-patient coefficients of variation.
For liver tumor and normal liver, median BF, BV, and PS were significantly higher for the Liver protocol than for the Body protocol: 171.3 to 177.8 vs 39.4 to 42.0 mL/min per 100 g, 17.2 to 18.7 vs 3.1 to 4.2 mL/100 g, and 65.1 to 78.9 vs 50.4 to 66.1 mL/min per 100 g, respectively (P < 0.01 for all). There were no differences in MTT between protocols. Within-patient coefficients of variation were lower for all parameters with the Liver protocol than with the Body protocol: BF, 7.5% to 11.2% vs 11.7% to 20.8%; BV, 10.1% to 14.4% vs 16.6% to 30.1%; MTT, 4.2% to 5.5% vs 10.4% to 12.9%; and PS, 7.3% to 12.1% vs 12.6% to 20.3%, respectively.
Utilization of dual vascular input CTp liver analyses has substantial impact on absolute CTp parameter values and test-retest variability. Incorporation of the PV inputs may yield more precise results; however, it imposes substantial practical constraints on acquiring the necessary data.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
74 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to determine the role of computed tomography (CT) perfusion in differentiating hemangiomas from malignant hepatic lesions. This study was approved by the institutional review board. All the patients provided informed consent. CT perfusion was performed with 64 multidetector CT (MDCT) scanner on 45 patients including 27 cases of metastasis, 9 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and 9 cases of hemangiomas. A 14 cm span of the liver was covered during the perfusion study. Data was analyzed to calculate blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), permeability surface area product (PS), mean transit time (MTT), hepatic arterial fraction (HAF), and induced residue fraction time of onset (IRFTO). CT perfusion parameters at the periphery of lesions and background liver parenchyma were compared. Significant changes were observed in the perfusion parameters at the periphery of different lesions. Of all the perfusion parameters BF, HAF, and IRFTO showed most significant changes. In our study we found: BF of more than 400 ml/100 g/min at the periphery of the hemangiomas showed sensitivity of 88.9%, specificity of 83.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 57.1%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.7% in differentiating hemangiomas from hepatic malignancy; HAF of more than 60% at the periphery of hemangiomas showed sensitivity of 77.8%, specificity of 86.1%, PPV of 58.3% and NPV of 93.9% in differentiating hemangiomas from hepatic malignancy; IRFTO of more than 3 s at the periphery of hemangiomas showed sensitivity of 77.8%, specificity of 86.1%, PPV of 58.3%, and NPV of 93.9% in differentiating hemangiomas from hepatic malignancy. Perfusion CT is a helpful tool in differentiating hemangiomas from hepatic malignancy by its ability to determine changes in perfusion parameters of the lesions.
    Journal of clinical imaging science. 01/2014; 4:10.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the introduction of molecularly targeted chemotherapeutics, there is an increasing need for defining new response criteria for therapeutic success because use of morphologic imaging alone may not fully assess tumor response. Computed tomographic (CT) perfusion imaging of the liver provides functional information about the microcirculation of normal parenchyma and focal liver lesions and is a promising technique for assessing the efficacy of various anticancer treatments. CT perfusion also shows promising results for diagnosing primary or metastatic tumors, for predicting early response to anticancer treatments, and for monitoring tumor recurrence after therapy. Many of the limitations of early CT perfusion studies performed in the liver, such as limited coverage, motion artifacts, and high radiation dose of CT, are being addressed by recent technical advances. These include a wide area detector with or without volumetric spiral or shuttle modes, motion correction algorithms, and new CT reconstruction technologies such as iterative algorithms. Although several issues related to perfusion imaging-such as paucity of large multicenter trials, limited accessibility of perfusion software, and lack of standardization in methods-remain unsolved, CT perfusion has now reached technical maturity, allowing for its use in assessing tumor vascularity in larger-scale prospective clinical trials. In this review, basic principles, current acquisition protocols, and pharmacokinetic models used for CT perfusion imaging of the liver are described. Various oncologic applications of CT perfusion of the liver are discussed and current challenges, as well as possible solutions, for CT perfusion are presented. © RSNA, 2014 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
    Radiology 08/2014; 272(2):322-344. · 6.34 Impact Factor