Cargando…
A Novel CT to Cone-Beam CT Registration Method Enables Immediate Real-Time Intraprocedural Three-Dimensional Assessment of Ablative Treatments of Liver Malignancies
AIM: To evaluate a novel contrast-enhanced cone-beam computed tomography (CE-CBCT) registration method for accurate immediate assessment of ablation outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) was registered with CE-CBCT by applying semiautomatic landmark registrati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5976710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29492634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-1909-0 |
Sumario: | AIM: To evaluate a novel contrast-enhanced cone-beam computed tomography (CE-CBCT) registration method for accurate immediate assessment of ablation outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) was registered with CE-CBCT by applying semiautomatic landmark registration followed by automatic affine and non-rigid registration to correct for respiratory phase differences and liver deformation. This scheme was retrospectively applied to 30 patients who underwent 38 percutaneous microwave liver ablations. Three datasets were obtained for each case: (1) conventional CECT scans 24 h before ablation, (2) intraprocedural CE-CBCT scans, and (3) CECT scans 24 h post-ablation. Using a five-point scale, two experienced radiologists qualitatively assessed registration quality, equivalence of CE-CBCT assessment of ablation outcome to 24 h post-ablation CECT, and perceived increase of confidence using the fusion method to CBCT alone. Additionally, residual post-ablation tumor volumes were measured at both CE-CBCT and 24 h CECT and compared to the pre-CECT. RESULTS: Registration quality was high for both radiologists (R1: 4.3 ± 0.6, R2: 4.4 ± 0.5; p = 0.87). Comparisons between the registration of pre-ablation CECT with CE-CBCT versus post-ablation CECT regarding the position of the ablated area to the treated target (R1: 4.4 ± 0.6, R2: 4.6 ± 0.4) and treatment outcome (R1: 4.5 ± 0.5, R2: 4.6 ± 0.4) were equivalent (p > 0.35). Increased confidence was noted when using fusion (R1: 4.6 ± 0.4, R2: 4.6 ± 0.4; p = 0.84). Moreover, in 6 ablations (15.8%) the intraprocedural registered CBCT showed residual tumor precisely where identified on the 24 h post-ablation CECT. CONCLUSIONS: Combined CE-CBCT holds the potential to change the current workflow of mini-invasive cancer local treatments. Given earlier visual identification of residual tumor post-ablation, this includes potentially eliminating the need for some additional treatments. |
---|