| Literature DB >> 32525133 |
Guorong Wang1, Zhiwei Wang1, Zhengyu Jin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metallic microwave ablation (MWA) antenna-related artifacts are usually created in conventional CT images, and these artifacts can influence the effect of ablation. The aim of this study was to evaluate a new type of metal artifact reduction (MAR+) technique in CT-guided MWA for lung cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study enrolled 30 lung cancer patients who received CT-guided MWA treatment from December 2017 to April 2018. Images after microwave antenna insertion into the tumor were reconstructed by the filter back projection (group A) and MAR+ reconstruction (group B). The CT values and standard deviations of the regions of interest (ROIs) on the chosen image were recorded, including the most significantly hypodense artifact (ROI₁), hyperdense artifacts (ROI₂), and chest muscles of the same layer (ROI₃). The metal artifact indexes based on ROI₁ and ROI₂ (AI₁, AI₂) and the overall metal artifact index (AI) were calculated. Subjective image quality was graded on a five-point scale (1=worst, 5=excellent). RESULTS The AI₁ (74.14±76.32), AI₂ (13.75±19.02) and AI (54.12±54.82) of group B were lower than those of group A [(153.33±89.04), (30.63±26.42), (112.00±63.10), respectively] (P<0.001 for all). Both radiologists reported that the subjective image value of group B was significantly higher than that of group A (P<0.001). The subjective image quality scores evaluated by 2 observers showed excellent consistency (ICC=0.829). CONCLUSIONS The MAR+ imaging reconstruction significantly reduced metal artifacts, which helps radiologists to clearly observe the relationship between the ablation antenna and the lesion.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32525133 PMCID: PMC7304313 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.923541
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1A 58-year-old man with the primary lung cancer who underwent MWA treatment. (A) An axial plain CT image before the ablation process showing an elliptical nodule of 3.4×2.4 cm in the basal right lower lobe in the lung window (red arrow). (B) The axial plain CT scan after filter back projection reconstruction presenting with poor quality, where the extensive metal artifacts impair the assessment of the antenna’s position within the nodule. (C) The axial plain CT scan after MAR+ reconstruction appearing with excellent quality where the metal artifacts are greatly reduced, allowing better visualization of the relationship of the antenna and lesion. (D) An axial plain CT scan after the biopsy procedure showing patchy areas of ground-glass opacity around the lesion (red arrows).
Figure 2The flow of the MAR+ technique.
Clinical characteristics of the patients.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60.3±11.6 (38–77) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 23 (76.7%) |
| Female | 7 (23.3%) |
| Histopathological types | |
| Primary lung cancer | 21 (70%) |
| Adenocarcinoma | 15 (71.4%) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 6 (28.6%) |
| Metastatic lung cancer | 9 (30%) |
| Esophageal squamous cell cancer | 1 (11.1%) |
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | 5 (55.6%) |
| Colorectal adenocarcinoma | 3 (33.3%) |
| Tumor size (cm) | 3.5±0.7 (2.3–4.9) |
| Complications | |
| Pneumothorax | 4 (13.3%) |
| Pleural effusion | 2 (6.7%) |
| Effective dose (mSv) | 2.74±0.43 (2.23–3.17) |
Data are the mean±standard deviation, and data in parentheses are the ranges or percentages.
The values of AI1, AI2 and AI were significantly different between groups A and B.
| Group A | Group B | P values | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI1 | 153.33±89.04 | 74.14±76.32 | <0.001 |
| AI2 | 30.63±26.42 | 13.75±19.02 | <0.001 |
| AI | 112.00±63.10 | 54.12±54.82 | <0.001 |
Data are presented as the mean±standard deviation, and P<0.05 indicates statistical significance.
Subjective image quality assessment between groups A and B by 2 radiologists.
| Radiologists | Patients | Score 1 | Score 2 | Score 3 | Score 4 | Score 5 | Mean score | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiologist 1 | ||||||||
| Group 1 | 30 | 20 (66.7%) | 10 (33.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1, 2) | P<0.001 |
| Group 2 | 30 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (16.7%) | 15 (50%) | 10 (33.3%) | 4 (4, 5) | |
| Radiologist 2 | ||||||||
| Group 1 | 30 | 20 (66.7%) | 10 (33.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1, 2) | P<0.001 |
| Group 2 | 30 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (13.3%) | 18 (60%) | 8 (26.7%) | 4 (4, 5) | |
Data are the median and interquartile range and data in parentheses are the percentages.