PURPOSE: To compare liver coverage and tumor detectability by using preprocedural magnetic resonance (MR) images as a reference, as well as radiation exposure of cone-beam computed tomography (CT) with different rotational trajectories. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients (nine men and six women; mean age ± standard deviation, 65 years ± 5) with primary or secondary liver cancer were retrospectively included in this institutional review board-approved study. A modified cone-beam CT protocol was used in which the C-arm rotates from +55° to -185° (open arc cone-beam CT) instead of -120° to +120° (closed arc cone-beam CT). Each patient underwent two sessions of transarterial chemoembolization between February 2013 and March 2014 with closed arc and open arc cone-beam CT (during the first and second transarterial chemoembolization sessions, respectively, as part of the institutional transarterial chemoembolization protocol). For each cone-beam CT examination, liver volume and tumor detectability were assessed by using MR images as the reference. Radiation exposure was compared by means of a phantom study. For statistical analysis, paired t tests and a Wilcoxon signed rank test were performed. RESULTS: Mean liver volume imaged was 1695 cm(3) ± 542 and 1857 cm(3) ± 571 at closed arc and open arc cone-beam CT, respectively. The coverage of open arc cone-beam CT was significantly higher compared with closed arc cone-beam CT (97% vs 86% of the MR imaging liver volume, P = .002). In eight patients (53%), tumors were partially or completely outside the closed arc cone-beam CT field of view. All tumors were within the open arc cone-beam CT field of view. The open arc cone-beam CT radiation exposure by means of weighted CT index was slightly lower compared with that of closed arc cone-beam CT (-5.1%). CONCLUSION: Open arc cone-beam CT allowed for a significantly improved intraprocedural depiction of peripheral hepatic tumors while achieving a slight radiation exposure reduction.
PURPOSE: To compare liver coverage and tumor detectability by using preprocedural magnetic resonance (MR) images as a reference, as well as radiation exposure of cone-beam computed tomography (CT) with different rotational trajectories. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients (nine men and six women; mean age ± standard deviation, 65 years ± 5) with primary or secondary liver cancer were retrospectively included in this institutional review board-approved study. A modified cone-beam CT protocol was used in which the C-arm rotates from +55° to -185° (open arc cone-beam CT) instead of -120° to +120° (closed arc cone-beam CT). Each patient underwent two sessions of transarterial chemoembolization between February 2013 and March 2014 with closed arc and open arc cone-beam CT (during the first and second transarterial chemoembolization sessions, respectively, as part of the institutional transarterial chemoembolization protocol). For each cone-beam CT examination, liver volume and tumor detectability were assessed by using MR images as the reference. Radiation exposure was compared by means of a phantom study. For statistical analysis, paired t tests and a Wilcoxon signed rank test were performed. RESULTS: Mean liver volume imaged was 1695 cm(3) ± 542 and 1857 cm(3) ± 571 at closed arc and open arc cone-beam CT, respectively. The coverage of open arc cone-beam CT was significantly higher compared with closed arc cone-beam CT (97% vs 86% of the MR imaging liver volume, P = .002). In eight patients (53%), tumors were partially or completely outside the closed arc cone-beam CT field of view. All tumors were within the open arc cone-beam CT field of view. The open arc cone-beam CT radiation exposure by means of weighted CT index was slightly lower compared with that of closed arc cone-beam CT (-5.1%). CONCLUSION: Open arc cone-beam CT allowed for a significantly improved intraprocedural depiction of peripheral hepatic tumors while achieving a slight radiation exposure reduction.
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: 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: 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
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