| Literature DB >> 31811190 |
Keno K Bressem1, Janis L Vahldiek2, Christoph Erxleben2, Seyd Shnayien2, Franz Poch3, Beatrice Geyer3, Kai S Lehmann3, B Hamm2, Stefan M Niehues2.
Abstract
After hepatic microwave ablation, the differentiation between fully necrotic and persistent vital tissue through contrast enhanced CT remains a clinical challenge. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate new imaging modalities, such as CT perfusion (CTP) to improve the visualization of coagulation necrosis. MWA and CTP were prospectively performed in five healthy pigs. After the procedure, the pigs were euthanized, and the livers explanted. Orthogonal histological slices of the ablations were stained with a vital stain, digitalized and the necrotic core was segmented. CTP maps were calculated using a dual-input deconvolution algorithm. The segmented necrotic zones were overlaid on the DICOM images to calculate the accuracy of depiction by CECT/CTP compared to the histological reference standard. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the agreement/true positive rate and disagreement/false discovery rate between CECT/CTP and histology. Standard CECT showed a true positive rate of 81% and a false discovery rate of 52% for display of the coagulation necrosis. Using CTP, delineation of the coagulation necrosis could be improved significantly through the display of hepatic blood volume and hepatic arterial blood flow (p < 0.001). The ratios of true positive rate/false discovery rate were 89%/25% and 90%/50% respectively. Other parameter maps showed an inferior performance compared to CECT.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31811190 PMCID: PMC6898643 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-55026-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Size comparison of contrast enhanced CT and CT-perfusion against the histologic reference standard.
| Mean Area (mm²) | Mean maximum diameter (mm) | p | Correlation coefficient | Mean squared error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histology | 204.8 | 18.1 | |||
| Contrast enhanced CT | 334.4 | 21.0 | 0.038 | 0.59 | 169 |
| CT Perfusion | |||||
| Hepatic blood volume | 199.2 | 17.5 | 0.535 | 0.73 | 97 |
| Hepatic arterial blood flow | 308.0 | 22.3 | 0.083 | 0.72 | 148 |
| Portal blood flow | 359.8 | 24.0 | 0.012 | 0.70 | 178 |
| Total blood flow | 365.5 | 23.7 | 0.017 | 0.68 | 181 |
| Mean transit time | 356.3 | 23.7 | 0.009 | 0.65 | 172 |
Individual measurements of accuracy for contrast enhanced CT and CT-perfusion.
| Contrast enhanced CT | Arterial blood flow | Portal blood flow | Total blood flow | Hepatic blood volume | Mean transit time | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPR (%) | FDR (%) | ADR | TPR (%) | FDR (%) | ADR | TPR (%) | FDR (%) | ADR | TPR (%) | FDR (%) | ADR | TPR (%) | FDR (%) | ADR | TPR (%) | FDR (%) | ADR | |
| Ablation 1 | 99 | 54 | 0.83 | 100 | 57 | 0.76 | 100 | 59 | 0.71 | 100 | 53 | 0.89 | 100 | 29 | 2.42 | 100 | 59 | 0.7 |
| Ablation 2 | 99 | 63 | 0.59 | 100 | 59 | 0.7 | 100 | 65 | 0.54 | 100 | 48 | 1.1 | 91 | 5 | 6.58 | 99 | 68 | 0.47 |
| Ablation 3 | 59 | 47 | 0.63 | 76 | 33 | 1.23 | 100 | 48 | 1.07 | 100 | 39 | 1.57 | 96 | 11 | 5.9 | 100 | 49 | 1.06 |
| Ablation 4 | 72 | 69 | 0.38 | 7 | 53 | 0.65 | 95 | 68 | 0.45 | 100 | 69 | 0.45 | 80 | 47 | 0.87 | 100 | 69 | 0.45 |
| Ablation 5 | 17 | 13 | 0.19 | 59 | 06 | 1.34 | 100 | 80 | 0.25 | 100 | 80 | 0.25 | 99 | 28 | 2.54 | 100 | 80 | 0.25 |
| Ablation 6 | 95 | 43 | 1.27 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 099 | 58 | 0.72 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 99 | 43 | 1.32 | 98 | 49 | 1.02 |
| Ablation 7 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 95 | 17 | 3.97 | 100 | 55 | 0.83 |
| Ablation 8 | 89 | 73 | 0.36 | 100 | 69 | 0.46 | 100 | 71 | 0.41 | 100 | 71 | 0.41 | 92 | 37 | 1.47 | 100 | 68 | 0.48 |
| Ablation 9 | 79 | 45 | 0.92 | 94 | 54 | 0.8 | 80 | 67 | 0.44 | 100 | 70 | 0.42 | 70 | 17 | 1.57 | 100 | 67 | 0.48 |
| Ablation 10 | 97 | 57 | 0.74 | 100 | 57 | 0.75 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 100 | 58 | 0.73 | 66 | 16 | 1.42 | 95 | 57 | 0.73 |
| Pooled | ||||||||||||||||||
| Cut-off | 200 HU | 74 ml/min | 75 ml/min | 100 ml/min | 29 ml | 38 sec | ||||||||||||
Figure 1Shows summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curves for the accuracy of hepatic blood volume (HBV), hepatic arterial blood flow (AF) and contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT). On the left, the SROC curves of all three parameter maps with the summary estimate for the overall accuracy and its 95% confidence interval is provided. The three subplots on the right represent the individual SROC curves, and the points represent pairs of true positive and false discovery rates in individual ablations. HBV provides the highest accuracy with an area under the SROC-curve (AUC) of 0.85, followed by AF and CECT. Also, the 95% CI of the summary estimate for HBV does not overlap with the 95% CI for AF or CECT. Between the 95% CI of AF and CECT some overlap can be seen, which could indicate that AF might not perform better than CECT in a different sample.
Figure 2Schematically shows the image analysis procedure. First the images (in this case CECT) were imported (1A), then grey level mapping was applied, showing only values between 0 and a given cut-off value, transforming the image into a binary image (1B). The ablation was then isolated by a region-growing algorithm (1C).
Figure 3Shows a comparison in display of the coagulation necrosis of histology (Hematoxylin and eosin stain) (2A), contrast enhanced CT (2B) and perfusion maps of hepatic arterial flow (2C) and hepatic blood volume (2D). Under the respective original images, the segmented coagulation necrosis of the gold standard is shown in light red (2E) and the display of the coagulation necrosis by the corresponding modality in dark grey (2F for Contrast enhanced CT, 2G for hepatic arterial flow, 2H for hepatic blood volume). For each modality, the cut-off described in Table 2 was used.