4.4 Article

Comparison of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance of Cone-Beam CT during Drug-Eluting Embolic Transarterial Chemoembolization and Multidetector CT in the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.03.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare image quality and diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography (CT) and multidetector CT in the detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis undergoing transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting embolic agents. Materials and Methods: Fifty-five consecutive patients referred for chemoembolization of hypervascular HCC were prospectively enrolled. Imaging included preprocedural multidetector CT within 1 month before planned treatment, intraprocedural cone-beam CT, and 1-month follow-up multidetector CT. Analysis of image quality was performed with calculations of lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (LLCNR) and lesion-to-liver signal-to-noise-ratio (LLSNR). One-month follow-up multidetector CT was considered the reference standard for the detection of HCC nodules. Results: Median LLCNR values were 3.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.06-5.05) for preprocedural multidetector CT and 6.90 (95% CI, 5.17-7.77) for intraprocedural cone-beam CT (P < .0001). Median LLSNR values were 11.53 (95% CI, 9.51-12.44) for preprocedural multidetector CT and 9.36 (95% CI, 8.12-10.39) for intraprocedural cone-beam CT (P < .0104). Preprocedural multi detector CT detected 115 hypervascular nodules with typical HCC behavior, and cone-beam CT detected 15 additional hypervascular nodules that were also visible on 1-month follow-up multidetector CT. Conclusions: Cone-beam CT has a significantly higher diagnostic performance compared with preprocedural multidetector CT in the detection of HCCs and can influence management of patients with cirrhosis by identifying particularly aggressive tumors.

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

4.4
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