Cargando…

Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure

Objective. To evaluate two ultrafast cone-beam CT (UF-CBCT) imaging protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters regarding image quality and required contrast media during image-guided hepatic transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods. In 80 patients (male: 46, female: 34; mea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paul, Jijo, Chacko, Annamma, Farhang, Mohammad, Kamali, Shahram, Tavanania, Mohsen, Vogl, Thomas, Panahi, Bita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4385616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25874213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/467850
_version_ 1782365059013410816
author Paul, Jijo
Chacko, Annamma
Farhang, Mohammad
Kamali, Shahram
Tavanania, Mohsen
Vogl, Thomas
Panahi, Bita
author_facet Paul, Jijo
Chacko, Annamma
Farhang, Mohammad
Kamali, Shahram
Tavanania, Mohsen
Vogl, Thomas
Panahi, Bita
author_sort Paul, Jijo
collection PubMed
description Objective. To evaluate two ultrafast cone-beam CT (UF-CBCT) imaging protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters regarding image quality and required contrast media during image-guided hepatic transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods. In 80 patients (male: 46, female: 34; mean age: 56.8 years; range: 33–83) UF-CBCT was performed during TACE for intraprocedural guidance. Imaging was performed using two ultrafast CBCT acquisition protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters (imaging protocol 1: acquisition time 2.54 s, and contrast 6 mL with 3 s delay; imaging protocol 2: acquisition time 2.72 s, and contrast 7 mL with 6 s delay). Image evaluation was performed with both qualitative and quantitative methods. Contrast injection volume and dose parameters were compared using values from the literature. Results. Imaging protocol 2 provided significantly better (P < 0.05) image quality than protocol 1 at the cost of slightly higher contrast load and patient dose. Imaging protocol 1 provided good contrast perfusion but it mostly failed to delineate the tumors (P < 0.05). On the contrary, imaging protocol 2 showed excellent enhancement of hepatic parenchyma, tumor, and feeding vessels. Conclusion. Tumor delineation, visualization of hepatic parenchyma, and feeding vessels are clearly possible using imaging protocol 2 with ultrafast CBCT imaging. A reduction of required contrast volume and patient dose were achieved due to the ultrafast CBCT imaging.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4385616
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43856162015-04-13 Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure Paul, Jijo Chacko, Annamma Farhang, Mohammad Kamali, Shahram Tavanania, Mohsen Vogl, Thomas Panahi, Bita Biomed Res Int Clinical Study Objective. To evaluate two ultrafast cone-beam CT (UF-CBCT) imaging protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters regarding image quality and required contrast media during image-guided hepatic transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods. In 80 patients (male: 46, female: 34; mean age: 56.8 years; range: 33–83) UF-CBCT was performed during TACE for intraprocedural guidance. Imaging was performed using two ultrafast CBCT acquisition protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters (imaging protocol 1: acquisition time 2.54 s, and contrast 6 mL with 3 s delay; imaging protocol 2: acquisition time 2.72 s, and contrast 7 mL with 6 s delay). Image evaluation was performed with both qualitative and quantitative methods. Contrast injection volume and dose parameters were compared using values from the literature. Results. Imaging protocol 2 provided significantly better (P < 0.05) image quality than protocol 1 at the cost of slightly higher contrast load and patient dose. Imaging protocol 1 provided good contrast perfusion but it mostly failed to delineate the tumors (P < 0.05). On the contrary, imaging protocol 2 showed excellent enhancement of hepatic parenchyma, tumor, and feeding vessels. Conclusion. Tumor delineation, visualization of hepatic parenchyma, and feeding vessels are clearly possible using imaging protocol 2 with ultrafast CBCT imaging. A reduction of required contrast volume and patient dose were achieved due to the ultrafast CBCT imaging. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4385616/ /pubmed/25874213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/467850 Text en Copyright © 2015 Jijo Paul et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Paul, Jijo
Chacko, Annamma
Farhang, Mohammad
Kamali, Shahram
Tavanania, Mohsen
Vogl, Thomas
Panahi, Bita
Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure
title Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure
title_full Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure
title_fullStr Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure
title_full_unstemmed Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure
title_short Ultrafast Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Imaging Protocols during Image-Guided Therapy Procedure
title_sort ultrafast cone-beam computed tomography: a comparative study of imaging protocols during image-guided therapy procedure
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4385616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25874213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/467850
work_keys_str_mv AT pauljijo ultrafastconebeamcomputedtomographyacomparativestudyofimagingprotocolsduringimageguidedtherapyprocedure
AT chackoannamma ultrafastconebeamcomputedtomographyacomparativestudyofimagingprotocolsduringimageguidedtherapyprocedure
AT farhangmohammad ultrafastconebeamcomputedtomographyacomparativestudyofimagingprotocolsduringimageguidedtherapyprocedure
AT kamalishahram ultrafastconebeamcomputedtomographyacomparativestudyofimagingprotocolsduringimageguidedtherapyprocedure
AT tavananiamohsen ultrafastconebeamcomputedtomographyacomparativestudyofimagingprotocolsduringimageguidedtherapyprocedure
AT voglthomas ultrafastconebeamcomputedtomographyacomparativestudyofimagingprotocolsduringimageguidedtherapyprocedure
AT panahibita ultrafastconebeamcomputedtomographyacomparativestudyofimagingprotocolsduringimageguidedtherapyprocedure