PURPOSE: To prospectively determine whether position and size of tumor region of interest (ROI) influence estimates of colorectal cancer vascular parameters at computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, 25 men and 22 women (mean age, 65.8 years) with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent 65-second CT perfusion study. Blood volume, blood flow, and permeability-surface area product were determined for 40- or 120-mm(2) circular ROIs placed at the tumor edge and center and around (outlining) visible tumor. ROI analysis was repeated by two observers in different subsets of patients to assess intra- and interobserver variation. Measurements were compared by using analysis of variance; a difference with P = .002 was significant. RESULTS: Blood volume, blood flow, and permeability-surface area product measurements were substantially higher at the edge than at the center for both 40- and 120-mm(2) ROIs. For 40-mm(2) ROI, means of the three measurements were 6.9 mL/100 g (standard deviation [SD], 1.4), 108.7 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 39.2), and 16.9 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 4.2), respectively, at the edge versus 5.1 mL/100 g (SD, 1.5), 56.3 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 33.1), and 13.9 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 4.6), respectively, at the center. For 120-mm(2) ROI, means of the three measurements were 6.6 mL/100 g (SD, 1.3), 96.7 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 42.5), and 16.3 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 5.6), respectively, at the edge versus 5.1 mL/100 g (SD, 1.4), 58.3 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 32.5), and 13.4 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 4.3) at the center (P < .0001). Measurements varied substantially depending on the ROI size; values for the ROI for outlined tumor were intermediate between those at the tumor edge and center. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was poor for both 40- and 120-mm(2) ROIs. CONCLUSION: Position and size of tumor ROI and observer variation substantially influence ultimate perfusion values. ROI for outlined entire tumor is more reliable for perfusion measurements and more appropriate clinically than use of arbitrarily determined smaller ROIs. (c) RSNA, 2008.
PURPOSE: To prospectively determine whether position and size of tumor region of interest (ROI) influence estimates of colorectal cancer vascular parameters at computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, 25 men and 22 women (mean age, 65.8 years) with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent 65-second CT perfusion study. Blood volume, blood flow, and permeability-surface area product were determined for 40- or 120-mm(2) circular ROIs placed at the tumor edge and center and around (outlining) visible tumor. ROI analysis was repeated by two observers in different subsets of patients to assess intra- and interobserver variation. Measurements were compared by using analysis of variance; a difference with P = .002 was significant. RESULTS: Blood volume, blood flow, and permeability-surface area product measurements were substantially higher at the edge than at the center for both 40- and 120-mm(2) ROIs. For 40-mm(2) ROI, means of the three measurements were 6.9 mL/100 g (standard deviation [SD], 1.4), 108.7 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 39.2), and 16.9 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 4.2), respectively, at the edge versus 5.1 mL/100 g (SD, 1.5), 56.3 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 33.1), and 13.9 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 4.6), respectively, at the center. For 120-mm(2) ROI, means of the three measurements were 6.6 mL/100 g (SD, 1.3), 96.7 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 42.5), and 16.3 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 5.6), respectively, at the edge versus 5.1 mL/100 g (SD, 1.4), 58.3 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 32.5), and 13.4 mL/100 g per minute (SD, 4.3) at the center (P < .0001). Measurements varied substantially depending on the ROI size; values for the ROI for outlined tumor were intermediate between those at the tumor edge and center. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was poor for both 40- and 120-mm(2) ROIs. CONCLUSION: Position and size of tumor ROI and observer variation substantially influence ultimate perfusion values. ROI for outlined entire tumor is more reliable for perfusion measurements and more appropriate clinically than use of arbitrarily determined smaller ROIs. (c) RSNA, 2008.
Authors: Fabian Eisa; Robert Brauweiler; Martin Hupfer; Tristan Nowak; Laura Lotz; Inge Hoffmann; David Wachter; Ralf Dittrich; Matthias W Beckmann; Gregor Jost; Hubertus Pietsch; Willi A Kalender Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephanie Nougaret; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Yulia Lakhman; Romain Sudre; Richard K G Do; Frederic Bibeau; David Azria; Eric Assenat; Nicolas Molinari; Marie-Ange Pierredon; Philippe Rouanet; Boris Guiu Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael A Fischer; Bart Vrugt; Hatem Alkadhi; Dieter Hahnloser; Thomas F Hany; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: João Pedro Filipe; Luís Curvo-Semedo; João Casalta-Lopes; Maria Cristina Marques; Filipe Caseiro-Alves Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 2.310