AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of intravenous contrast-enhanced C-arm computed tomography (CT) for assessing ablative areas and margins of liver tumors. METHODS: Twelve patients (5 men, 7 women; mean age, 69.5 years) who had liver tumors (8 hepatocellular carcinomas, 4 metastatic liver tumors; mean size, 16.3 mm; size range, 8-20 mm) and who underwent percutaneous radiofrequency ablations (RFAs) with a flat-detector C-arm system were retrospectively reviewed. Intravenously enhanced C-arm CT and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) images were obtained at the end of the RFA sessions and 3-7 d after RFA to evaluate the ablative areas and margins. The ablated areas and margins were measured using axial plane images acquired by both imaging techniques, with prior contrast-enhanced MDCT images as the reference. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of C-arm CT for detecting insufficient ablative margins (< 5 mm) were calculated. Statistical differences in the ablative areas and margins evaluated with both imaging techniques were compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS: All RFA procedures were technically successful. Of 48 total ablative margins, 19 (39.6%) and 20 (41.6%) margins were found to be insufficient with C-arm CT and MDCT, respectively. Moreover, there were no significant differences between these 2 imaging techniques in the detection of these insufficient ablative margins. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting insufficient margins by C-arm CT were 90.0%, 96.4%, 94.7% and 93.1%, respectively. The mean estimated ablative areas calculated from C-arm CT (462.5 ± 202.1 mm(2)) and from MDCT (441.2 ± 212.5 mm(2)) were not significantly different. The mean ablative margins evaluated by C-arm CT (6.4 ± 2.2 mm) and by MDCT (6.0 ± 2.4 mm) were also not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of intravenous contrast-enhanced C-arm CT in assessing the ablative areas and margins after RFA of liver tumors is nearly equivalent to that of MDCT.
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of intravenous contrast-enhanced C-arm computed tomography (CT) for assessing ablative areas and margins of liver tumors. METHODS: Twelve patients (5 men, 7 women; mean age, 69.5 years) who had liver tumors (8 hepatocellular carcinomas, 4 metastatic liver tumors; mean size, 16.3 mm; size range, 8-20 mm) and who underwent percutaneous radiofrequency ablations (RFAs) with a flat-detector C-arm system were retrospectively reviewed. Intravenously enhanced C-arm CT and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) images were obtained at the end of the RFA sessions and 3-7 d after RFA to evaluate the ablative areas and margins. The ablated areas and margins were measured using axial plane images acquired by both imaging techniques, with prior contrast-enhanced MDCT images as the reference. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of C-arm CT for detecting insufficient ablative margins (< 5 mm) were calculated. Statistical differences in the ablative areas and margins evaluated with both imaging techniques were compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS: All RFA procedures were technically successful. Of 48 total ablative margins, 19 (39.6%) and 20 (41.6%) margins were found to be insufficient with C-arm CT and MDCT, respectively. Moreover, there were no significant differences between these 2 imaging techniques in the detection of these insufficient ablative margins. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting insufficient margins by C-arm CT were 90.0%, 96.4%, 94.7% and 93.1%, respectively. The mean estimated ablative areas calculated from C-arm CT (462.5 ± 202.1 mm(2)) and from MDCT (441.2 ± 212.5 mm(2)) were not significantly different. The mean ablative margins evaluated by C-arm CT (6.4 ± 2.2 mm) and by MDCT (6.0 ± 2.4 mm) were also not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of intravenous contrast-enhanced C-arm CT in assessing the ablative areas and margins after RFA of liver tumors is nearly equivalent to that of MDCT.
Authors: Ulrich Linsenmaier; Clemens Rock; Ekkehard Euler; Stefan Wirth; Roland Brandl; Dorothea Kotsianos; Wolf Mutschler; Klaus Jürgen Pfeifer Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael J Wallace; Michael D Kuo; Craig Glaiberman; Christoph A Binkert; Robert C Orth; Gilles Soulez Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Kyung Won Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Ernst Klotz; Soo Jin Kim; Se Hyung Kim; Ji Young Kim; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bernhard C Meyer; Bernd B Frericks; Maerthe Voges; Michael Borchert; Peter Martus; Joern Justiz; Karl-Juergen Wolf; Frank K Wacker Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C Matthew Hawkins; Alexander J Towbin; Derek J Roebuck; Eric J Monroe; Anne E Gill; Avnesh S Thakor; Richard B Towbin; Anne Marie Cahill; Matthew P Lungren Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-02-02
Authors: Avinash Kambadakone; Vinit Baliyan; Hamed Kordbacheh; Raul N Uppot; Ashraf Thabet; Debra A Gervais; Ronald S Arellano Journal: World J Hepatol Date: 2017-07-08