OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of three analytic methods, maximum slope (MS), dual-input single-compartment model (CM) and deconvolution (DC), for CT measurements of hepatic perfusion and assess the effects of extra-hepatic systemic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients who were suspected of having metastatic liver tumors underwent hepatic CT perfusion. The scans were performed at the hepatic hilum 7-77 s after administration of contrast material. Hepatic arterial and portal perfusions (HAP and HPP, ml/min/100 ml) and arterial perfusion fraction (APF, %) were calculated with the three methods, followed by correlation assessment. Partial correlation analysis was used to assess the effects on hepatic perfusion values by various factors such as age, sex, risk of cardiovascular diseases, arrival time of contrast material at abdominal aorta, transit time from abdominal aorta to hepatic parenchyma, and liver dysfunction. RESULTS: Mean HAP of MS was significantly higher than DC. HPP of CM was significantly higher than MS and CM, and HPP of MS was significantly higher than DC. There was no significant difference in APF. HAP and APF showed significant and moderate correlations among the methods. HPP showed significant and moderate correlations between CM and DC, and poor correlation between MS and CM or DC. All methods showed weak correlations between HAP or APF and age or sex. Finally, MS showed weak correlations between HAP or HPP and arrival time or cardiovascular risks. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic perfusion values arrived at with the three methods are not interchangeable. CM and DC are less susceptible to extra-hepatic systemic factors.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of three analytic methods, maximum slope (MS), dual-input single-compartment model (CM) and deconvolution (DC), for CT measurements of hepatic perfusion and assess the effects of extra-hepatic systemic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients who were suspected of having metastatic liver tumors underwent hepatic CT perfusion. The scans were performed at the hepatic hilum 7-77 s after administration of contrast material. Hepatic arterial and portal perfusions (HAP and HPP, ml/min/100 ml) and arterial perfusion fraction (APF, %) were calculated with the three methods, followed by correlation assessment. Partial correlation analysis was used to assess the effects on hepatic perfusion values by various factors such as age, sex, risk of cardiovascular diseases, arrival time of contrast material at abdominal aorta, transit time from abdominal aorta to hepatic parenchyma, and liver dysfunction. RESULTS: Mean HAP of MS was significantly higher than DC. HPP of CM was significantly higher than MS and CM, and HPP of MS was significantly higher than DC. There was no significant difference in APF. HAP and APF showed significant and moderate correlations among the methods. HPP showed significant and moderate correlations between CM and DC, and poor correlation between MS and CM or DC. All methods showed weak correlations between HAP or APF and age or sex. Finally, MS showed weak correlations between HAP or HPP and arrival time or cardiovascular risks. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic perfusion values arrived at with the three methods are not interchangeable. CM and DC are less susceptible to extra-hepatic systemic factors.
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; Adam G Chandler; Wei Wei; Ella F Anderson; Delise H Herron; Razelle Kurzrock; Chusilp Charnsangavej Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2012 Jul-Aug 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