4.6 Article

MDCT Necrosis Quantification in the Assessment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Response to Yttrium 90 Radioembolization Therapy: Comparison of Two-dimensional and Volumetric Techniques

Journal

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 48-54

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.09.005

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; EASL criteria; WHO criteria; volumetry; computed tomography (CT)

Funding

  1. Siemens Medical Solutions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale and Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reproducibility and agreement of tumor necrosis quantification performed by two-dimensional and volumetric methods in a cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with yttrium-90 ((90)y) radioembolization. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine consecutive patients (21 men, 8 women; mean age 66.6 years; age range, 44-90 years) with HCC treated with (90)Y radioembolization that underwent liver multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) were included. Two independent radiologists evaluated the necrosis proportion of the lesions with two-dimensional (2D) measurements according to the European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines, and with a volumetric method using a voxel-by-voxel analysis. Interobserver reproducibility for each method was assessed by using within-subject coefficients of variation (WSCV), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (LCC). Agreement between both methods was assessed by using the Bland-Altman plot and the paired t-test. Results: The volumetric method was more reproducible (WSCV = 27.8%; ICC = 0.914; LCC = 0.909) than the 2D (WSCV = 43.8%; ICC = 0.723; LCC = 0.841). There was a significant difference in the mean calculated necrosis proportions based on 2D and volumetric methods (P = .0129). Conclusion: Voxel-by-voxel quantification of HCC necrosis is a more reproducible method than 2D analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available