OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of acquisition time on quantitative colorectal cancer perfusion measurement. METHODS: Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) was performed prospectively in 10 patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer using 4-detector row CT (Lightspeed Plus; GE Healthcare Technologies, Waukesha, WI). Tumor blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability were assessed for 3 acquisition times (45, 65, and 130 seconds). Mean values for all 4 perfusion parameters for each acquisition time were compared using the paired t test. RESULTS: Significant differences in permeability values were noted between acquisitions of 45 seconds and 65 and 130 seconds, respectively (P=0.02, P=0.007). There was no significant difference for values of blood volume, blood flow, and mean transit time between any of the acquisition times. CONCLUSIONS: Scan acquisitions of 45 seconds are too short for reliable permeability measurement in the abdomen. Longer acquisition times are required.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of acquisition time on quantitative colorectal cancer perfusion measurement. METHODS: Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) was performed prospectively in 10 patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer using 4-detector row CT (Lightspeed Plus; GE Healthcare Technologies, Waukesha, WI). Tumor blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and permeability were assessed for 3 acquisition times (45, 65, and 130 seconds). Mean values for all 4 perfusion parameters for each acquisition time were compared using the paired t test. RESULTS: Significant differences in permeability values were noted between acquisitions of 45 seconds and 65 and 130 seconds, respectively (P=0.02, P=0.007). There was no significant difference for values of blood volume, blood flow, and mean transit time between any of the acquisition times. CONCLUSIONS: Scan acquisitions of 45 seconds are too short for reliable permeability measurement in the abdomen. Longer acquisition times are required.
Authors: Chaan S Ng; Adam G Chandler; James C Yao; Delise H Herron; Ella F Anderson; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Brian P Hobbs Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Scott M Thompson; Juan C Ramirez-Giraldo; Bruce Knudsen; Joseph P Grande; Jodie A Christner; Man Xu; David A Woodrum; Cynthia H McCollough; Matthew R Callstrom Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: R Jain; S K Ellika; L Scarpace; L R Schultz; J P Rock; J Gutierrez; S C Patel; J Ewing; T Mikkelsen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 3.825