| Literature DB >> 35908026 |
Bernhard C Meyer1, Jan B Hinrichs1, Lena S Becker2, Cornelia L A Dewald1, Christian von Falck1, Thomas Werncke1, Sabine K Maschke1, Roman Kloeckner3, Frank K Wacker1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate effectivity of a 3D-motion correction algorithm in C-Arm CTs (CACT) with limited image quality (IQ) during transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).Entities:
Keywords: C-Arm CT; Interventional Radiology; Motion correction algorithm; Transarterial chemoembolization
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35908026 PMCID: PMC9338620 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-022-00473-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 5.605
Fig. 1Flow chart of patient selection in the present study
Patient demographics and image quality data
| Age (years) | 69.7 ± 10.7 | |
| Gender | ||
| Female (%) | 8 (30.8) | |
| Male (%) | 18 (69.2) | |
| CACT before TACE intervention | ||
| Included | 39 | |
| Excluded (catheter dislocation, moderate IQ) | 13 | |
| Bad IQ due to (several may apply): | ||
| Cardiorespiratory motion artifacts | 16 | |
| Low hepatic artery-to-parenchyma enhancement ratio | 14 | |
| 3D motion recompensation algorithm | ||
| Technical feasibility | 27 | |
| Image preference concerning TACE intervention | ||
| CACTMC_no bone > CACTOrg | 22 | 19 |
| CACTMC_no bone = CACTOrg | / | 5 |
| CACTMC_no bone < CACTOrg | ||
Abbreviations: CACT original C-Arm CT, CACT C-arm CT after motion correction and bone segmentation, IQ Image quality, TACE transarterial chemoembolization
Summary of CACT IQ evaluation criteria
| Overall IQ | |
| | 1: Good |
| 2 Moderate | |
| 3: Poor | |
| Vessel visualization | |
| | 1: clear visualization of all hepatic arteries including fine peripheral hepatic arteries at the subcapsular region without blurring |
| 2: clear visualization of hepatic arteries up to subsegmental level without blurring, but indisctinct fine peripheral hepatic arteries at the subcapsular region | |
| 3: blurriness of hepatic arteries but traceable up to subsegmental level | |
| 4: moderate blurring of hepatic arteries with pruning of subsegmental arteries | |
| 5: severe blurring of hepatic arteries with difficulty in tracing segmental hepatic arteries | |
| Presence of (cardiorespiratory) artifacts | |
| - Diaphragmatic motion d | Definition: Motion artifact width of right hemidiaphragm on sagittal image |
| | 0: none (< 0.1 mm) |
| 1: mild (0.1- 2 mm) | |
| 2: moderate (2.1–3.5 mm) | |
| 3:severe (> 3.5 mm) | |
| Hepatic artery-to-parenchyma ratio | Definition: Ratio of intraarterial HU value 2 cm distally to the catheter tip (ROI fitted to two thirds of the vessel diameter) and maximal parenchymal enhancement |
| Preferred dataset for TACE | CACTOrg vs. CACTMC_no bone |
| Need for additional imaging | Yes/no |
Abbreviations: CACT original C-Arm CT, CACTC-arm CT after motion correction and bone segmentation, HU Hounsfield Units, IQ Image quality, ROI region of interest, TACE transarterial chemoembolization
Fig. 2Three coronary 15 mm MIPs of the right (A.1,2), common (B.1,2) and left hepatic artery (C.1, C2) before and after application of the motion compensating algorithm (CACTOrg vs. CACTMC_no bone). A.2 demonstrates a significantly less blurry central (right) hepatic artery, an increased number of vascular tumor feeders as potential embolization targets and a clear discrimination of the small arteries originating from the main stem when compared to A.1. B.2 shows a significantly improved delineation of the common hepatic artery and its smaller branches, potentially benefitting their catherization. C.2 shows improved visualization of the central (left) and peripheral hepatic arteries after application of the motion compensating algorithm and bone segmentation, though to a lesser degree peripherally than in A,B
Fig. 3.15 mm coronal MIP of a case with patchy enhancement of the liver parenchyma, and consecutively low ratio of hepatic artery-to-parenchyma contrast. There is no clear difference after application of the motion compensating algorithm, especially concerning vessel blurriness in the periphery
Tabellarized results from the interrater analysis
| 3.07 ± 0.78 | 1.61 ± 0.79 | 3.19 ± 0.74 | 1.45 ± 0.64 | n.a | n.a | |||
CACTOrg: 3.07 ± 0.75 CACTMC_no bone: 1.55 ± 0.72 * ICC = 0.74 * | ||||||||
| 2.52 ± 0.51 | 1.41 ± 0.57 | 2.7 ± 0.45 | 1.37 ± 0.56 | n.a | n.a | |||
CACTOrg: 2.63 ± 0.7 CACTMC_no bone: 1.39 ± 0.8 * ICC = 0.79 * | ||||||||
| n.a | n.a | |||||||
| ICC 0.73 * | ||||||||
| 0.9 | 1.2 | |||||||
| 15.3 ± 14.9 | 11.5 ± 13.5 | n.a | n.a | |||||
Abbreviations: CACTOrg: original C-Arm CT dataset, CACTMC_no bone: post-processed C-Arm CT (motion correction, bone segmentation)
*p < 0.01
Fig. 4An ordinal logistic regression showed a significant correlation between the contrast ratio (CR) and the chosen image quality (IQ) of CACTMC_no_bone. This is reflected by the higher probability of choosing a better IQ with increasing contrast ratio and an odds ratio of 0.7 ± 1.1 (mean ± std. error). For CACTOrg, no significant correlation was noted between the CR and the readers’ evaluation of IQ, which is also demonstrated by the comparable probabilities of choosing IQ and an odds ratio of 1 ± 1 (mean ± std error). The gray area between the perforated and continuous line represents the 95% confidence interval