PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of CT perfusion (CTp) protocol modifications on quantitative perfusion parameters, radiation dose and data processing time. MATERIALS & METHODS: CTp datasets of 30 patients (21M:9F) with rectal (n = 24) or retroperitoneal (n = 6) tumours were studied. Standard CTp protocol included 50 sec cine-phase (0.5 sec/rotation) and delayed-phase after 70 ml contrast bolus at 5-7 ml/sec. CTp-data was sub-sampled to generate modified datasets (n = 105) with cine-phase(n = 15) alone, varying cine-phase duration (20-40 sec, n = 45) and varying temporal sampling-interval (1-3 sec, n = 45). The estimated CTp parameters (BF,BV,MTT&PS) and radiation dose of standard CTp served as reference for comparison. RESULTS: CTp with 50 sec cine-phase showed moderate to high correlation with standard CTp for BF&MTT (r = 0.96&0.85) and low correlation for BV (0.75, p = 0.04). Limiting cine-phase duration to 30 sec demonstrated comparable results for BF&MTT, while considerable variation in CTp values existed at 20 sec. There was moderate-to-high correlation of CTp parameters with sampling interval of 1&2 sec (r = 0.83-0.97, p > 0.05), while at 3 sec only BF showed high correlation (r = 0.96, p = 0.05). Increasing sampling interval (47-60%) and reducing cine-phase duration substantially reduced dose(30.8-65%) which paralleled reduced data processing time (3-10 min). CONCLUSION: Limiting CTp cine-phase to 30 sec results in comparable BF&MTT values and increasing cine-phase sampling interval to 2 sec provides good correlation for all CTp parameters with substantial dose reduction and improved computational efficiency.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of CT perfusion (CTp) protocol modifications on quantitative perfusion parameters, radiation dose and data processing time. MATERIALS & METHODS:CTp datasets of 30 patients (21M:9F) with rectal (n = 24) or retroperitoneal (n = 6) tumours were studied. Standard CTp protocol included 50 sec cine-phase (0.5 sec/rotation) and delayed-phase after 70 ml contrast bolus at 5-7 ml/sec. CTp-data was sub-sampled to generate modified datasets (n = 105) with cine-phase(n = 15) alone, varying cine-phase duration (20-40 sec, n = 45) and varying temporal sampling-interval (1-3 sec, n = 45). The estimated CTp parameters (BF,BV,MTT&PS) and radiation dose of standard CTp served as reference for comparison. RESULTS:CTp with 50 sec cine-phase showed moderate to high correlation with standard CTp for BF&MTT (r = 0.96&0.85) and low correlation for BV (0.75, p = 0.04). Limiting cine-phase duration to 30 sec demonstrated comparable results for BF&MTT, while considerable variation in CTp values existed at 20 sec. There was moderate-to-high correlation of CTp parameters with sampling interval of 1&2 sec (r = 0.83-0.97, p > 0.05), while at 3 sec only BF showed high correlation (r = 0.96, p = 0.05). Increasing sampling interval (47-60%) and reducing cine-phase duration substantially reduced dose(30.8-65%) which paralleled reduced data processing time (3-10 min). CONCLUSION: Limiting CTpcine-phase to 30 sec results in comparable BF&MTT values and increasing cine-phase sampling interval to 2 sec provides good correlation for all CTp parameters with substantial dose reduction and improved computational efficiency.
Authors: D Gandhi; D B Chepeha; T Miller; R C Carlos; C R Bradford; R Karamchandani; F Worden; A Eisbruch; T N Teknos; G T Wolf; S K Mukherji Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dushyant V Sahani; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Leena M Hamberg; Peter F Hahn; Christopher G Willett; Sanjay Saini; Peter R Mueller; Ting-Yim Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martijn R Meijerink; Jan Hein T M van Waesberghe; Lineke van der Weide; Petrousjka van den Tol; Sybren Meijer; Cornelis van Kuijk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher G Willett; Yves Boucher; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Dan G Duda; Lance L Munn; Ricky T Tong; Daniel C Chung; Dushyant V Sahani; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Sergey V Kozin; Mari Mino; Kenneth S Cohen; David T Scadden; Alan C Hartford; Alan J Fischman; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Ryan; Andrew X Zhu; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Helen X Chen; Paul C Shellito; Gregory Y Lauwers; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Nat Med Date: 2004-01-25 Impact factor: 53.440
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: Chaan S Ng; Brian P Hobbs; Wei Wei; Ella F Anderson; Delise H Herron; James C Yao; Adam G Chandler Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Chaan S Ng; Brian P Hobbs; Adam G Chandler; Ella F Anderson; Delise H Herron; Chusilp Charnsangavej; James Yao Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Chaan S Ng; Adam G Chandler; Wei Wei; Ella F Anderson; Delise H Herron; Razelle Kurzrock; Chusilp Charnsangavej Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.959