Zhijun Wang1, Mingde Lin2, David Lesage3, Rongxin Chen1, Julius Chapiro1, Tara Gu1, Vania Tacher1, Rafael Duran1, Jean-François Geschwind4. 1. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD 21287. 2. Clinical Informatics, Interventional, and Translational Solutions (CIITS), Philips Research North America, Briarcliff Manor, NY. 3. Philips Research, Medisys, Suresnes, France. 4. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD 21287. Electronic address: jfg@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the capability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquired immediately after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in determining lipiodol retention quantitatively and volumetrically when compared to 1-day postprocedure unenhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June to December 2012, 15 patients met the inclusion criteria of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that was treated with conventional TACE (cTACE) and had intraprocedural CBCT and 1-day post-TACE MDCT. Four patients were excluded because the lipiodol was diffuse throughout the entire liver or lipiodol deposition was not clear on both CBCT and MDCT. Eleven patients with a total of 31 target lesions were included in the analysis. A quantitative three-dimensional software was used to assess complete, localized, and diffuse lipiodol deposition. Tumor volume, lipiodol volume in the tumor, percent lipiodol retention, and lipiodol enhancement in Hounsfield units (HU) were calculated and compared between CBCT and MDCT using two-tailed Student's t test and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: The mean value of tumor volume, lipiodol-deposited regions, calculated average percent lipiodol retention, and HU value of CBCT were not significantly different from those of MDCT (tumor volume: 9.37 ± 11.35 cm(3) vs 9.34 ± 11.44 cm(3), P = .991; lipiodol volume: 7.84 ± 9.34 cm(3) vs 7.84 ± 9.60 cm(3), P = .998; lipiodol retention: 89.3% ± 14.7% vs. 90.2% ± 14.9%, P = .811; HU value: 307.7 ± 160.1 HU vs. 257.2 ± 120.0 HU, P = .139). Bland-Altman plots showed only minimal difference and high agreement when comparing CBCT to MDCT. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT has a similar capability, intraprocedurally, to assess lipiodol deposition in three dimensions for patients with HCC treated with cTACE when compared to MDCT.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the capability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquired immediately after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in determining lipiodol retention quantitatively and volumetrically when compared to 1-day postprocedure unenhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June to December 2012, 15 patients met the inclusion criteria of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that was treated with conventional TACE (cTACE) and had intraprocedural CBCT and 1-day post-TACE MDCT. Four patients were excluded because the lipiodol was diffuse throughout the entire liver or lipiodol deposition was not clear on both CBCT and MDCT. Eleven patients with a total of 31 target lesions were included in the analysis. A quantitative three-dimensional software was used to assess complete, localized, and diffuse lipiodol deposition. Tumor volume, lipiodol volume in the tumor, percent lipiodol retention, and lipiodol enhancement in Hounsfield units (HU) were calculated and compared between CBCT and MDCT using two-tailed Student's t test and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: The mean value of tumor volume, lipiodol-deposited regions, calculated average percent lipiodol retention, and HU value of CBCT were not significantly different from those of MDCT (tumor volume: 9.37 ± 11.35 cm(3) vs 9.34 ± 11.44 cm(3), P = .991; lipiodol volume: 7.84 ± 9.34 cm(3) vs 7.84 ± 9.60 cm(3), P = .998; lipiodol retention: 89.3% ± 14.7% vs. 90.2% ± 14.9%, P = .811; HU value: 307.7 ± 160.1 HU vs. 257.2 ± 120.0 HU, P = .139). Bland-Altman plots showed only minimal difference and high agreement when comparing CBCT to MDCT. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT has a similar capability, intraprocedurally, to assess lipiodol deposition in three dimensions for patients with HCC treated with cTACE when compared to MDCT.
Authors: Wayne L Monsky; Isaac Kim; Shaun Loh; Chin-Shang Li; Tamara A Greasby; Larry-Stuart Deutsch; Ramsey D Badawi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alessia Tognolini; John D Louie; Gloria L Hwang; Lawrence V Hofmann; Daniel Y Sze; Nishita Kothary Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 3.464
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: Rüdiger E Schernthaner; Julius Chapiro; Sonia Sahu; Paul Withagen; Rafael Duran; Jae Ho Sohn; Alessandro Radaelli; Imramsjah Martin van der Bom; Jean-François H Geschwind; MingDe Lin Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew L Lewis; Sean L Willis; Matthew R Dreher; Yiqing Tang; Koorosh Ashrafi; Bradford J Wood; Elliot B Levy; Karun V Sharma; Ayele H Negussie; Andrew S Mikhail Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Dan Xia; David A Langan; Stephen B Solomon; Zheng Zhang; Buxin Chen; Hao Lai; Emil Y Sidky; Xiaochuan Pan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 3.609