Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 40–47 | Cite as

Low-dose whole organ CT perfusion of the pancreas: preliminary study

  • Hai-ou Li
  • Cong Sun
  • Zhuo-dong Xu
  • Fan Miao
  • De-jian Zhang
  • Jiu-hong Chen
  • Xiao Li
  • Xi-ming Wang
  • Cheng Liu
  • Bin Zhao
Article

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the feasibility of low-dose whole pancreas CT perfusion in the clinical practice.

Methods

Sixty-one patients suspected pancreatic disease underwent low-dose whole pancreas CT perfusion scan (by body weight, group A: 70 kV, 120 mAs; group B: 80 kV, 100 mAs) and the individualized pancreas scan. Forty-six patients were enrolled. Perfusion characteristics, such as, blood flow, blood volume and permeability, were analyzed. The effective radiation dose of the whole pancreas CT perfusion and the total CT scan protocol were recorded. CT findings were histologically confirmed by surgical intervention or diagnostic puncture.

Results

Of the 46 cases, 33 were pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 5 were solid-pseudo-papillary tumors of pancreas, 8 cases of pancreatic endocrine tumors on the perfusion study. There was significant interobserver agreement on the measurement of normal pancreatic CT perfusion parameters of group A (n = 28)and group B (n = 18), respectively (p > 0.05). For the normal pancreas, there was no significant difference on CT perfusion parameters between group A and group B (p > 0.05). There were significant differences on blood flow as well as blood volume between the pancreatic adenocarcinomas and the normal pancreas (p < 0.001), whereas no difference on the permeability (p > 0.05). The time to peak of the normal pancreas is 28.94 ± 4.37 s (range from 24 to 38 s). Different pancreatic tumors had different types of time attenuation curve (TAC). TACs were different between pancreatic adenocarcinomas and normal pancreas. The effective radiation dose of the whole pancreas CT perfusion of Group A and Group B were 3.60 and 4.88 mSv (DLP 246 and 325 mGy cm), respectively, and the total radiation dose was around 8.01–16.22 mSv.

Conclusions

Low-dose whole pancreatic CT perfusion can effectively reduce radiation dose, and provide the best phase for the individualized pancreas scan, which has great value in the clinical practice.

Keywords

Radiation dose Pancreas Perfusion Computed tomography Clinical practice 

Notes

Grant support

Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (2012ZRB14061).

Supplementary material

261_2013_45_MOESM1_ESM.docx (46 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 46 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Miles KA, Lee TY, Goh V, et al. (2012) Current status and guidelines for the assessment of tumour vascular support with dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Eur Radiol 22:1430–1441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Park MS, Klotz E, Kim MJ, et al. (2009) Perfusion CT: noninvasive surrogate marker for stratification of pancreatic cancer response to concurrent chemo- and radiation therapy. Radiology 205:110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kandel S, Kloeters C, Meyer H, et al. (2009) Whole-organ perfusion of the pancreas using dynamic volume CT in patients with primary pancreas carcinoma: acquisition technique, post-processing and initial results. Eur Radiol 19:2641–2646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xu J, Liang Z, Hao S, et al. (2009) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: dynamic 64-slice helical CT with perfusion imaging. Abdom Imaging 34:759–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bize PE, Platon A, Becker CD, et al. (2006) Perfusion measurement in acute pancreatitis using dynamic perfusion MDCT. AJR 186:114–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsushima Y, Miyazaki M, Taketomi-Takahashi A, et al. (2011) Feasibility of measuring human pancreatic perfusion in vivo using imaging techniques. Pancreas 40:747–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsuji Y, Hamaguchi K, Watanabe Y, et al. (2010) Perfusion CT is superior to angiography in predicting pancreatic necrosis in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 45:1155–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zamboni GA, Bernardin L, Pozzi Mucelli R (2012) Dynamic MDCT of the pancreas: is time-density curve morphology useful for the differential diagnosis of solid lesions: a preliminary report. Eur J Radiol 81:e381–e385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H, et al. (2012) Multi-organ perfusion CT in the abdomen using a 320-detector row CT scanner: preliminary results of perfusion changes in the liver, spleen, and pancreas of cirrhotic patients. Eur J Radiol 81:2533–2537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klauss M, Stiller W, Pahn G, et al. (2013) Dual-energy perfusion-CT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur J Radiol 82:208–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanda T, Yoshikawa T, Ohno Y, et al. (2012) Perfusion measurement of the whole upper abdomen of patients with and without liver diseases: initial experience with 320-detector row CT. Eur J Radiol. 81:2470–2475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miles KA (1991) Measurement of tissue perfusion by dynamic computed tomography. Br J Radiol 64:409–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pandharipande PV, Krinsky GA, Rusinek H, et al. (2005) Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals. Radiology 234:661–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miles KA, Hayball MP, Dixon AK (1995) Measurement of human pancreatic perfusion using dynamic computed tomography with perfusion imaging. BJR 68:471–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xue HD, Liu W, Sun H, et al. (2010) Clinical application of perfusion imaging with multi-slice spiral CT in the preoperative differential diagnosis of tumor of pancreas. Oncol Prog 8:415–419Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang XR, Huang XH, Dong GL, et al. (2012) A study on multi-slice spiral CT perfusion imaging in different parts of normal pancreas. J Pract Radiol 28:286–289Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhao XM, Zhou CW, Wu N, et al. (2003) Multisection dynamic CT perfusion for normal and tumorous pancreas. Chin J Radiol 37:845–849Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liang ZH, Feng XY, Zhu RJ, et al. (2006) Study on multisection helical CT perfusion imaging in normal pancreas. Biomedical Eng Clin Med 10:218–222Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu J, Liang Z, Hao S, et al. (2009) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: dynamic 64-slice helical CT with perfusion imaging. Abdom Imaging 34:759–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Materne R, Van Beers BE, Smit AM, et al. (2000) Non-invasive quantification of liver perfusion with dynamic computed tomography and a dual-input one-compartmental model. Clin Sci (Lond) 99:517–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD (1983) Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Metab 3:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Beers BE, Leconte I, Mateme R, et al. (2001) Hepatic perfusion parameters in chronic liver disease: dynamic CT measurements correlated with disease severity. AJR 176:667–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hashimoto K, Murakami T, Dono K, et al. (2006) Assessment of the severity of liver disease and fibrotic change: the usefulness of hepatic CT perfusion imaging. Oncol Rep 16:677–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cenic A, Nabavi DG, Craen RA, et al. (1999) Dynamic CT measurement of cerebral blood flow: a validation study. Am J Neuroradiol 20:63–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Megibow AJ, Zhou XH, Rotterdam H, et al. (1995) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: CT versus MR imaging in the evaluation of respectability: report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 195:327–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muller MF, Meyerberger C, Bertschinger P, et al. (1994) Pancreatic tumors: evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology 190:745–751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diehl SJ, Lehmann KJ, Sadick M, et al. (1998) Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology 206:373–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McNulty NJ, Francis IR, Platt JF, et al. (2001) Multi-detector row helical CT of the pancreas: effect of contrast-enhanced multiphasic imaging on enhancement of the pancreas, peripancreatic vasculature, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radiology 220:97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA, et al. (2003) Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 229:81–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hollett MD, Jorgensen MJ, Jeffrey RB Jr (1995) Quantitative evaluation of pancreatic enhancement during dual-phase helical CT. Radiology 195:359–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bonaldi VM, Bret PM, Atri M, et al. (1996) Comparison of two injection protocols using helical and dynamic acquisitions in CT examinations of the pancreas. AJR 167:49–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Graf O, Boland GW, Warshaw AL, et al. (1997) Arterial versus portal venous helical CT for revealing pancreatic adenocarcinoma: conspicuity of tumor and critical vascular anatomy. AJR 169:119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kondo H, Kanematsu M, Goshima S, et al. (2007) MDCT of the pancreas: optimizing scanning delay with a bolus-tracking technique for pancreatic, peripancreatic vascular, and hepatic contrast enhancement. AJR 188:751–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matsunou H, Konishi F, Yamamichi N, Takayanagi N, Mukai M (1990) Solid, infiltrating variety of papillary cystic neoplasm of the pancreas. Cancer 65:2747–2757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hai-ou Li
    • 1
  • Cong Sun
    • 1
  • Zhuo-dong Xu
    • 1
  • Fan Miao
    • 2
  • De-jian Zhang
    • 1
  • Jiu-hong Chen
    • 3
  • Xiao Li
    • 1
  • Xi-ming Wang
    • 1
  • Cheng Liu
    • 1
  • Bin Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.Shandong University Shandong Provincial Medical Imaging InstituteJinanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Shandong Provincial HospitalJinanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Medical Solutions Group, Siemens Ltd.BeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations