4.6 Article

Dual-source dual-energy CT in the evaluation of hepatic fractional extracellular space in cirrhosis

期刊

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
卷 125, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-019-01089-7

关键词

Dual-source; Dual-energy CT; Iodine concentration-fractional extracellular space; Fibrosis-cirrhosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background One of the main features of liver fibrosis is the expansion of the interstitial space. All water-soluble CT contrast agents remain confined in the vascular and interstitial space constituting the fractional extracellular space ( fECS). Indirect measure of its expansion can be quantified during equilibrium phase with CT. The goal of this prospective study was to assess the feasibility of dual-energy CT (DECT) with iodine quantification at equilibrium phase in the evaluation of significant fibrosis or cirrhosis. Methods Thirty-eight cirrhotic patients (according to Child-Pugh and MELD scores), scheduled for liver CT, were enrolled in the study group. Twenty-four patients undergoing CT urography with a 10-min excretory phase were included in the control group. fECS was calculated as the ratio of the iodine concentration of liver parenchyma to that of the aorta, multiplied by 1 minus hematocrit. Results Final study and control group were, respectively, composed of 22 and 20 patients. Mean hepatic fECS value was statistically greater in study group (P < 0.05). Positive correlation was observed between hepatic fECS value and MELD score (r = 0.64, P < 0.05). Analysis of variance showed statistical differences between control group and the Child-Pugh grades and between Child-Pugh A and B patients and Child-Pugh C patients (P < 0.05). ROC curves analysis yielded an optimum fECS cutoff value of 26.3% for differentiation of control group and cirrhotic patients (AUC 0.88; 86% sensitivity, 85% specificity). Conclusions Dual-source DECT is a feasible, noninvasive method for the assessment of significant liver fibrosis or cirrhosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据