PURPOSE: We aimed to explore the influence of tube voltage, current and iterative reconstruction (IR) in computed tomography perfusion imaging (CTPI) and to compare CTPI parameters with microvessel density (MVD). METHODS: Hepatic CTPI with three CTPI protocols (protocol A, tube voltage/current 80 kV/40 mAs; protocol B, tube voltage/current 80 kV/80 mAs; protocol C: tube voltage/current 100 kV/80 mAs) were performed in 25 rabbit liver VX2 tumor models, and filtered back projection (FBP) and IR were used for reconstruction of raw data. Hepatic arterial perfusion (HAP), hepatic portal perfusion (HPP), total perfusion (TP), hepatic arterial perfusion index (HPI), blood flow (BF) and blood volume (BV) of VX2 tumor and normal hepatic parenchyma were measured. Image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were quantified and radiation dose was recorded. MVD was counted using CD34 stain and compared with CTPI parameters. RESULTS: The highest radiation dose was found in protocol C, followed by protocols B and A. IR lowered image noise and improved SNR and CNR in all three protocols. There was no statistical difference between HAP, HPP, TP, HPI, BF and BV of VX2 tumor and normal hepatic parenchyma among the three protocols (P > 0.05) with FBP or IR reconstruction, and no statistical difference between IR and FBP reconstruction (P > 0.05) in either protocol. MVD had a positive linear correlation with HAP, TP, BF, with best correlation observed with HAP; MVD of VX2 tumor showed no or poor correlation with HPI and BV. CONCLUSION: CTPI parameters are not affected by tube voltage, current or reconstruction algorithm; HAP can best reflect MVD, but no correlation exists between BV and MVD.
PURPOSE: We aimed to explore the influence of tube voltage, current and iterative reconstruction (IR) in computed tomography perfusion imaging (CTPI) and to compare CTPI parameters with microvessel density (MVD). METHODS: Hepatic CTPI with three CTPI protocols (protocol A, tube voltage/current 80 kV/40 mAs; protocol B, tube voltage/current 80 kV/80 mAs; protocol C: tube voltage/current 100 kV/80 mAs) were performed in 25 rabbit liver VX2 tumor models, and filtered back projection (FBP) and IR were used for reconstruction of raw data. Hepatic arterial perfusion (HAP), hepatic portal perfusion (HPP), total perfusion (TP), hepatic arterial perfusion index (HPI), blood flow (BF) and blood volume (BV) of VX2 tumor and normal hepatic parenchyma were measured. Image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were quantified and radiation dose was recorded. MVD was counted using CD34 stain and compared with CTPI parameters. RESULTS: The highest radiation dose was found in protocol C, followed by protocols B and A. IR lowered image noise and improved SNR and CNR in all three protocols. There was no statistical difference between HAP, HPP, TP, HPI, BF and BV of VX2 tumor and normal hepatic parenchyma among the three protocols (P > 0.05) with FBP or IR reconstruction, and no statistical difference between IR and FBP reconstruction (P > 0.05) in either protocol. MVD had a positive linear correlation with HAP, TP, BF, with best correlation observed with HAP; MVD of VX2 tumor showed no or poor correlation with HPI and BV. CONCLUSION: CTPI parameters are not affected by tube voltage, current or reconstruction algorithm; HAP can best reflect MVD, but no correlation exists between BV and MVD.
Authors: Achille Mileto; David A Zamora; Adam M Alessio; Carina Pereira; Jin Liu; Puneet Bhargava; Jonathan Carnell; Sophie M Cowan; Manjiri K Dighe; Martin L Gunn; Sooah Kim; Orpheus Kolokythas; Jean H Lee; Jeffrey H Maki; Mariam Moshiri; Ayesha Nasrullah; Ryan B O'Malley; Udo P Schmiedl; Erik V Soloff; Giuseppe V Toia; Carolyn L Wang; Kalpana M Kanal Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lee M Mitsumori; William P Shuman; Janet M Busey; Orpheus Kolokythas; Kent M Koprowicz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert Goetti; Caecilia S Reiner; Alexander Knuth; Ernst Klotz; Frank Stenner; Panagiotis Samaras; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Leena M Hamberg; Michael A Blake; Jo-Anne Shepard; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702