OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to assess the variability of perfusion CT measurements in lung tumors and the effects of motion and duration of data acquisition on perfusion CT parameter values. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two perfusion CT scans were obtained in 11 patients with lung tumors, 2-7 days apart, using phase 1 scans (30-second breath-hold cine) followed by phase 2 scans (six intermittent helical breath-holds), spanning 125 seconds. Tumor blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), mean transit time (MTT), and permeability were calculated for phase 1 using all-cine and motion-corrected (rigidly registered) images, both with and without matching phase 2 images (manually or rigidly registered). Variability was assessed by the within-patient coefficient of variation (CV) and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: BF, BV, MTT, and permeability values varied widely by method of analysis (median BF, 45.3-65.1 mL/min/100 g; median BV, 2.6-3.8 mL/100 g; median MTT, 3.6-4.1 seconds, and median permeability, 13.7-39.3 mL/min/100 g), as did within-patient CVs (10.9-114.4%, 25.3-117.6%, 22.3-51.5%, and 29.6-134.9%, respectively). Parameter values and variability were affected by motion and duration of data analyzed: permeability values doubled when phase 2 images were added to phase 1 data. Overall, the best reproducibility was obtained with registered phase 1 and 2 data, with within-patient CVs of 11.6%, 26.5%, 45.4%, and 30.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The absolute values and reproducibility of perfusion parameters in lung tumors are markedly influenced by motion and duration of data acquisition. Permeability, in particular, probably requires data acquisition beyond a single breath-hold. The smallest variability in parameter values was obtained with motion correction and extended acquisition durations.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to assess the variability of perfusion CT measurements in lung tumors and the effects of motion and duration of data acquisition on perfusion CT parameter values. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two perfusion CT scans were obtained in 11 patients with lung tumors, 2-7 days apart, using phase 1 scans (30-second breath-hold cine) followed by phase 2 scans (six intermittent helical breath-holds), spanning 125 seconds. Tumor blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), mean transit time (MTT), and permeability were calculated for phase 1 using all-cine and motion-corrected (rigidly registered) images, both with and without matching phase 2 images (manually or rigidly registered). Variability was assessed by the within-patient coefficient of variation (CV) and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: BF, BV, MTT, and permeability values varied widely by method of analysis (median BF, 45.3-65.1 mL/min/100 g; median BV, 2.6-3.8 mL/100 g; median MTT, 3.6-4.1 seconds, and median permeability, 13.7-39.3 mL/min/100 g), as did within-patient CVs (10.9-114.4%, 25.3-117.6%, 22.3-51.5%, and 29.6-134.9%, respectively). Parameter values and variability were affected by motion and duration of data analyzed: permeability values doubled when phase 2 images were added to phase 1 data. Overall, the best reproducibility was obtained with registered phase 1 and 2 data, with within-patient CVs of 11.6%, 26.5%, 45.4%, and 30.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The absolute values and reproducibility of perfusion parameters in lung tumors are markedly influenced by motion and duration of data acquisition. Permeability, in particular, probably requires data acquisition beyond a single breath-hold. The smallest variability in parameter values was obtained with motion correction and extended acquisition durations.
Authors: S W Harders; H H Madsen; H M Nellemann; T R Rasmussen; J Thygesen; H Hager; N T Andersen; F Rasmussen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Elisa Almeida Sathler Bretas; Ulysses S Torres; Lucas Rios Torres; Daniel Bekhor; Celso Fernando Saito Filho; Douglas Jorge Racy; Lorenzo Faggioni; Giuseppe D'Ippolito Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 3.039
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: P Veit-Haibach; D De Ruysscher; W van Elmpt; M Das; Martin Hüllner; H Sharifi; K Zegers; B Reymen; P Lambin; J E Wildberger; E G C Troost Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jinzhong Yang; Lifei Zhang; Xenia J Fave; David V Fried; Francesco C Stingo; Chaan S Ng; Laurence E Court Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Lisa L Chu; Robert J Knebel; Aryan D Shay; Jonathan Santos; Ramsey D Badawi; David R Gandara; Friedrich D Knollmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315