Pierleone Lucatelli1, Gianluca De Rubeis2, Luca Ginnani Corradini3, Fabrizio Basilico4, Michele Di Martino5, Quirino Lai6, Stefano Ginanni Corradini7, Alessandro Cannavale8, Pier Giorgio Nardis9, Mario Corona10, Luca Saba11, Carlo Catalano12, Mario Bezzi13. 1. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: pierleone.lucatelli@gmail.com. 2. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: derubeis.gianluca@gmail.com. 3. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: lucaginannicorradini@gmail.com. 4. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: fabribasi@gmail.com. 5. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: micdimartino@hotmail.it. 6. Department of General Surgery and Organ Transplantation, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: Quirino.lai@uniroma1.it. 7. Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: Stefano.corradini@uniroma1.it. 8. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: alessandro.cannavale@hotmail.com. 9. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: p.nardis@gmail.com. 10. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: mario.corona@uniroma1.it. 11. Department of Medical Imaging, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria (A.O.U.) of Cagliari-Polo Di Monserrato, Via Ospedale, 54, 09124 Cagliari CA, Italy. Electronic address: lucasabamd@gmail.com. 12. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: Carlo.catalano@uniroma1.it. 13. Vascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico, 155, 00161 Rome RM, Italy. Electronic address: Mario.bezzi@uniroma1.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was directed to compare diagnostic accuracy of dual-phase cone beam computed tomography (DP-CBCT) vs pre-procedural second line imaging modality (SLIM [multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging]) to detect and characterize hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients with indication for trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE). METHODS: This is a single centre, retrospective, and observational study. Exclusion criteria were not-assisted DP-CBCT TACE, and unavailable follow-up SLIM. We evaluated 280 consecutive patients (January/2015-Febraury/2019). Seventy-two patients were eligible. Three radiologists in consensus reviewed: pre-procedural SLIM, DP-CBCT, and SLIM at follow-up, with 4 months of interval between each reading. Hyper-vascular foci (HVF) were detected and characterized. Diameter was recorded. Radiological behaviour, according to LI-RADS criteria, of HFV throughout follow-up time was the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for pre-procedural SLIM and DP-CBCT and evaluated through receiver operating characteristic curve. HVF only visible on DP-CBCT (defined as occult) were analysed. Tumour diameters were compared. RESULTS: Median time between pre-procedural SLIM and DP-CBCT and between DP-CBCT and definitive radiological diagnosis of HVF were 46.0 days (95%CI 36.5-55.0) and 30.5 days (95%CI 29.0-33.0), respectively. DP-CBCT had a better diagnostic performance than pre-examination SLIM (sensitivity 99%vs78%; specificity 89%vs85%; PPV 99%vs99%; NPV 92%vs30%; and accuracy 94%vs79%). DP-CBCT diagnosed 63 occult HVF. Occult HCC were 54/243 (22.2%). Six were occult angiomas. Three were false positive. Mean diameter was significantly higher in DP-CBCT vs pre-procedural SLIM (+7.5% [95%CI 3.7-11.3], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DP-CBCT has a better diagnostic accuracy and NPV than pre-procedural SLIM in cirrhotic patients with indication for TACE.
PURPOSE: This study was directed to compare diagnostic accuracy of dual-phase cone beam computed tomography (DP-CBCT) vs pre-procedural second line imaging modality (SLIM [multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging]) to detect and characterize hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhoticpatients with indication for trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE). METHODS: This is a single centre, retrospective, and observational study. Exclusion criteria were not-assisted DP-CBCT TACE, and unavailable follow-up SLIM. We evaluated 280 consecutive patients (January/2015-Febraury/2019). Seventy-two patients were eligible. Three radiologists in consensus reviewed: pre-procedural SLIM, DP-CBCT, and SLIM at follow-up, with 4 months of interval between each reading. Hyper-vascular foci (HVF) were detected and characterized. Diameter was recorded. Radiological behaviour, according to LI-RADS criteria, of HFV throughout follow-up time was the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for pre-procedural SLIM and DP-CBCT and evaluated through receiver operating characteristic curve. HVF only visible on DP-CBCT (defined as occult) were analysed. Tumour diameters were compared. RESULTS: Median time between pre-procedural SLIM and DP-CBCT and between DP-CBCT and definitive radiological diagnosis of HVF were 46.0 days (95%CI 36.5-55.0) and 30.5 days (95%CI 29.0-33.0), respectively. DP-CBCT had a better diagnostic performance than pre-examination SLIM (sensitivity 99%vs78%; specificity 89%vs85%; PPV 99%vs99%; NPV 92%vs30%; and accuracy 94%vs79%). DP-CBCT diagnosed 63 occult HVF. Occult HCC were 54/243 (22.2%). Six were occult angiomas. Three were false positive. Mean diameter was significantly higher in DP-CBCT vs pre-procedural SLIM (+7.5% [95%CI 3.7-11.3], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DP-CBCT has a better diagnostic accuracy and NPV than pre-procedural SLIM in cirrhoticpatients with indication for TACE.
Authors: Amer M Johri; Laura E Mantella; Ankush D Jamthikar; Luca Saba; John R Laird; Jasjit S Suri Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357