4.4 Article

Quantitative colorectal cancer perfusion measurement by multidetector-row CT: does greater tumour coverage improve measurement reproducibility?

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 943, Pages 578-583

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/18842556

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to determine if greater z-axis tumour coverage improves the reproducibility of quantitative colorectal cancer perfusion measurements using CT. A 65 s perfusion study was acquired following intravenous contrast administration in 10 patients with proven colorectal cancer using a four-detector row scanner. This was repeated within 48 h using identical technical parameters to allow reproducibility assessment. Quantitative tumour blood volume, blood flow, mean transit time and permeability measurements were determined using commercially available software (Perfusion 3.0; GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) for data obtained from a 5 mm z-axis tumour coverage, and from a 20 mm z-axis tumour coverage. Measurement reproducibility was assessed using Bland-Altman statistics, for a 5 mm z-axis tumour coverage, and 20 mm z-axis tumour coverage, respectively. The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) for blood volume, blood flow, mean transit time and permeability were 0.04 (-2.50 to +2.43) ml/100 g tissue; +8.80 (-50.5 to +68.0) ml/100 g tissue/min; -0.99 (-8.19 to +6.20) seconds; and +1.20 (-5.42 to +7.83) ml/100 g tissue/min, respectively, for a 5 mm coverage, and -0.04 (-2.61 to +2.53) ml/100 g tissue; +7.40 (-50.3 to +65.0) ml/100 g tissue/min; -2.46 (-12.61 to +7.69) seconds; and -0.23 (-8.31 to +7.85) ml/100 g tissue/min, respectively, for a 20 mm coverage, indicating similar levels of agreement. In conclusion, increasing z-axis coverage does not improve reproducibility of quantitative colorectal cancer perfusion measurements.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available