PURPOSE: To evaluate the detectability of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) on dual-phase cone-beam CT (DPCBCT) during conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) compared to that of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) with respect to pre-procedure contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) of the liver. METHODS: This retrospective study included 17 consecutive patients (10 male, mean age 64) with ICC who underwent pre-procedure CE-MRI of the liver, and DSA and DPCBCT (early-arterial phase (EAP) and delayed-arterial phase (DAP)) just before cTACE. The visibility of each ICC lesion was graded by two radiologists on a three-rank scale (complete, partial, and none) on DPCBCT and DSA images, and then compared to pre-procedure CE-MRI. RESULTS: Of 61 ICC lesions, only 45.9% were depicted by DSA, whereas EAP- and DAP-CBCT yielded a significantly higher detectability rate of 73.8% and 93.4%, respectively (p < 0.01). Out of the 33 lesions missed on DSA, 18 (54.5%) and 30 (90.9%) were revealed on EAP- and DAP-CBCT images, respectively. DSA depicted only one lesion that was missed by DPCBCT due to streak artifacts caused by a prosthetic mitral valve. DAP-CBCT identified significantly more lesions than EAP-CBCT (p < 0.01). Conversely, EAP-CBCT did not detect lesions missed by DAP-CBCT. For complete lesion visibility, DAP-CBCT yielded significantly higher detectability (78.7%) compared to EAP (31.1%) and DSA (21.3%) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: DPCBCT, and especially the DAP-CBCT, significantly improved the detectability of ICC lesions during cTACE compared to DSA. We recommend the routine use of DAP-CBCT in patients with ICC for per-procedure detectability and treatment planning in the setting of TACE.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the detectability of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) on dual-phase cone-beam CT (DPCBCT) during conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) compared to that of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) with respect to pre-procedure contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) of the liver. METHODS: This retrospective study included 17 consecutive patients (10 male, mean age 64) with ICC who underwent pre-procedure CE-MRI of the liver, and DSA and DPCBCT (early-arterial phase (EAP) and delayed-arterial phase (DAP)) just before cTACE. The visibility of each ICC lesion was graded by two radiologists on a three-rank scale (complete, partial, and none) on DPCBCT and DSA images, and then compared to pre-procedure CE-MRI. RESULTS: Of 61 ICC lesions, only 45.9% were depicted by DSA, whereas EAP- and DAP-CBCT yielded a significantly higher detectability rate of 73.8% and 93.4%, respectively (p < 0.01). Out of the 33 lesions missed on DSA, 18 (54.5%) and 30 (90.9%) were revealed on EAP- and DAP-CBCT images, respectively. DSA depicted only one lesion that was missed by DPCBCT due to streak artifacts caused by a prosthetic mitral valve. DAP-CBCT identified significantly more lesions than EAP-CBCT (p < 0.01). Conversely, EAP-CBCT did not detect lesions missed by DAP-CBCT. For complete lesion visibility, DAP-CBCT yielded significantly higher detectability (78.7%) compared to EAP (31.1%) and DSA (21.3%) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION:DPCBCT, and especially the DAP-CBCT, significantly improved the detectability of ICC lesions during cTACE compared to DSA. We recommend the routine use of DAP-CBCT in patients with ICC for per-procedure detectability and treatment planning in the setting of TACE.
Authors: Michael J Wallace; Ravi Murthy; Paresh P Kamat; Teri Moore; Sujaya H Rao; Joe Ensor; Sanjay Gupta; Kamran Ahrar; David C Madoff; Stephen E McRae; Marshall E Hicks Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Hyeon Tae Jeong; Myeong-Jin Kim; Yong Eun Chung; Jin Young Choi; Young Nyun Park; Ki Whang Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: U Scheuermann; J M Kaths; M Heise; M B Pitton; A Weinmann; M Hoppe-Lotichius; G Otto Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Nisha I Sainani; Onofrio A Catalano; Nagaraj-Setty Holalkere; Andrew X Zhu; Peter F Hahn; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Omar Hyder; J Wallis Marsh; Riad Salem; Elena N Petre; Sanjeeva Kalva; Eleni Liapi; David Cosgrove; Donielle Neal; Ihab Kamel; Andrew X Zhu; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Jean-Francois H Geschwind; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Bruno C Odisio; Veronica L Cox; Silvana C Faria; Suguru Yamashita; Xiao Shi; Joe Ensor; Aaron K Jones; Armeen Mahvash; Sanjay Gupta; Alda L Tam; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Ravi Murthy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J C Durack; K T Brown; G Avignon; L A Brody; C T Sofocleous; J P Erinjeri; S B Solomon Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Ruediger E Schernthaner; Rafael Duran; Julius Chapiro; Zhijun Wang; Jean-François H Geschwind; MingDe Lin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ruediger E Schernthaner; Reham R Haroun; Rafael Duran; Howard Lee; Sonia Sahu; Jae Ho Sohn; Julius Chapiro; Yan Zhao; Boris Gorodetski; Florian Fleckenstein; Susanne Smolka; Alessandro Radaelli; Imramsjah Martijn van der Bom; MingDe Lin; Jean Francois Geschwind Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 2.740