Arun Chockalingam1, Rafael Duran2, Jae Ho Sohn3, Rüdiger Schernthaner4, Julius Chapiro5, Howard Lee6, Sonia Sahu7, Sonny Nguyen8, Jean-François Geschwind9, MingDe Lin10. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. chocka@rpi.edu. 2. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. rafaelduran.md@gmail.com. 3. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. sohn87@gmail.com. 4. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. rschern1@jhmi.edu. 5. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. j.chapiro@googlemail.com. 6. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. mail2howielee@gmail.com. 7. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. soniapsahu@gmail.com. 8. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. sonnytrnguyen@gmail.com. 9. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. jfg@jhmi.edu. 10. U/S Imaging and Interventions (UII), Philips Research North America, Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA. ming.lin@philips.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of region-of-interest (ROI) placement on 3D tumour enhancement [Quantitative European Association for the Study of the Liver (qEASL)] in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). METHODS: Phase 1: 40 HCC patients had nine ROIs placed by one reader using systematic techniques (3 ipsilateral to the lesion, 3 contralateral to the lesion, and 3 dispersed throughout the liver) and qEASL variance was measured. Intra-class correlations were computed. Phase 2: 15 HCC patients with histosegmentation were selected. Six ROIs were systematically placed by AC (3 ROIs ipsilateral and 3 ROIs contralateral to the lesion). Three ROIs were placed by 2 radiologists. qEASL values were compared to histopathology by Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and median difference. RESULTS: Phase 1: The dispersed method (abandoned in phase 2) had low consistency and high variance. Phase 2: qEASL correlated strongly with pathology in systematic methods [Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.886 (ipsilateral) and 0.727 (contralateral)] and in clinical methods (0.625 and 0.879). However, ipsilateral placement matched best with pathology (median difference: 5.4 %; correlation: 0.89; regression CI: [0.904, 0.1409]). CONCLUSIONS: qEASL is a robust method with comparable values among tested placements. Ipsilateral placement showed high consistency and better pathological correlation. KEY POINTS: Ipsilateral and contralateral ROI placement produces high consistency and low variance. Both ROI placement methods produce qEASL values that correlate well with histopathology. Ipsilateral ROI placement produces best correlation to pathology along with high consistency.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of region-of-interest (ROI) placement on 3D tumour enhancement [Quantitative European Association for the Study of the Liver (qEASL)] in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)patients treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). METHODS: Phase 1: 40 HCCpatients had nine ROIs placed by one reader using systematic techniques (3 ipsilateral to the lesion, 3 contralateral to the lesion, and 3 dispersed throughout the liver) and qEASL variance was measured. Intra-class correlations were computed. Phase 2: 15 HCCpatients with histosegmentation were selected. Six ROIs were systematically placed by AC (3 ROIs ipsilateral and 3 ROIs contralateral to the lesion). Three ROIs were placed by 2 radiologists. qEASL values were compared to histopathology by Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and median difference. RESULTS: Phase 1: The dispersed method (abandoned in phase 2) had low consistency and high variance. Phase 2: qEASL correlated strongly with pathology in systematic methods [Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.886 (ipsilateral) and 0.727 (contralateral)] and in clinical methods (0.625 and 0.879). However, ipsilateral placement matched best with pathology (median difference: 5.4 %; correlation: 0.89; regression CI: [0.904, 0.1409]). CONCLUSIONS: qEASL is a robust method with comparable values among tested placements. Ipsilateral placement showed high consistency and better pathological correlation. KEY POINTS: Ipsilateral and contralateral ROI placement produces high consistency and low variance. Both ROI placement methods produce qEASL values that correlate well with histopathology. Ipsilateral ROI placement produces best correlation to pathology along with high consistency.
Authors: J Bruix; M Sherman; J M Llovet; M Beaugrand; R Lencioni; A K Burroughs; E Christensen; L Pagliaro; M Colombo; J Rodés Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Petra Mürtz; Sebastian Flacke; Frank Träber; Johan S van den Brink; Jürgen Gieseke; Hans H Schild Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Susanne Smolka; Julius Chapiro; Wilfred Manzano; John Treilhard; Eric Reiner; Yanhong Deng; Yan Zhao; Bernd Hamm; James S Duncan; Bernhard Gebauer; MingDe Lin; Jean-François Geschwind Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Florian N Fleckenstein; Rüdiger E Schernthaner; Rafael Duran; Jae Ho Sohn; Sonia Sahu; Yan Zhao; Bernd Hamm; Bernhard Gebauer; MingDe Lin; Jean-François Geschwind; Julius Chapiro Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Brian S Letzen; Rohil Malpani; Milena Miszczuk; Quirina M B de Ruiter; Christopher W Petty; Irvin Rexha; Nariman Nezami; Fabian Laage-Gaupp; MingDe Lin; Todd R Schlachter; Julius Chapiro Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 2.420