Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1679–1684 | Cite as

Extra-hepatic sarcoma metastasis surveillance in the liver: is arterial phase imaging necessary?

  • Peter A. HarriEmail author
  • Alex Chung
  • Srini Tridandapani
  • Sadhna Nandwana
  • Oluwayemisi O. Ibraheem
  • Kelly Cox
  • Fredrick Murphy
  • Pardeep Mittal
  • William Small
Article
  • 179 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the value of arterial phase imaging (ART) in the detection of liver metastases on CT compared to portal venous phase imaging (PV) alone in patients with primary sarcomas.

Methods

Multiphasic abdominal computed tomography (CT) images of patients with tissue-proven sarcomas were reviewed by five abdominal radiologists in a staggered fashion. Up to three of the largest or most conspicuous liver lesions were characterized on a four-point confidence level for PV independently, followed by PV + ART. Inter-observer reliability was evaluated with kappa statistics. Change in characterization of lesions by the addition of ART was calculated. Follow-up imaging was used to determine if index lesion characterization was valid.

Results

55 of 149 patients had 470 liver lesion characterizations by the five readers with follow-up. Inter-observer agreement was κ = 0.62 on PV and κ = 0.58 on PV + ART. The intra-observer agreement between PV and ART interpretations of the same lesion was κ = 0.93. 426 lesion characterizations were possible on both PV and ART. Only 6 characterizations were changed after the addition of ART; 4 of the 6 changes were incorrect when compared to follow-up. Only 6 lesion characterizations could be made on ART alone (missed by PV), with all the malignant lesions arising from primary leiomyosarcomas. For the lesions seen on PV alone, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 98.8%, 100%, 100%, 99.3%, and 99.6%, respectively. After the addition of ART, they were 98.8%, 98.7%, 97.5%, 99.4%, and 98.7%, respectively.

Conclusion

ART adds marginal value to PV for characterization of metastatic liver lesions in patients with primary sarcomas, except possibly in primary leiomyosarcomas.

Keywords

Sarcoma Liver metastases Surveillance Computed tomography 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.

References

  1. 1.
    Blake MA, McDermott S, Rosen MP, Baker ME, Fidler JL, et al. (2011) Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® suspected liver metastases. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69475/Narrative/. Accessed 13 May 2016
  2. 2.
    Heiken JP, Brink JA, Vannier MW (1993) Spiral (helical) CT. Radiology 189:647–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller FH, Butler RS, Hoff FL, et al. (1998) Using triphasic helical CT to detect focal hepatic lesions in patients with neoplasms. Am J Roentgenol 171:643–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oliver JH 3rd, Baron RL, Federle MP, Jones BC, Sheng R (1997) Hypervascular liver metastases: do unenhanced and hepatic arterial phase CT images affect tumor detection? Radiology 205:709g–715gCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hicks RJ (2005) Functional imaging techniques for evaluation of sarcomas. Cancer Imaging 5:58–65CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmed S, Johnson PT, Fishman EK (2013) Defining vascular signatures of malignant hepatic masses: role of MDCT with 3D rendering. Abdom Imaging 38:763–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patten RM, Byun JY, Freeny PC (1993) CT of hypervascular hepatic tumors: are unenhanced scan necessary for diagnosis? Am J Roentgenol 161:979–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nelson RC, Kamel IR, Baker ME, Al-Refaie WB, Cash BD, et al. (2014) Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® liver lesion - initial characterization. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69472/Narrative/. Accessed 13 May 2016.
  9. 9.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 25:1753–1759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Harri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alex Chung
    • 2
  • Srini Tridandapani
    • 1
  • Sadhna Nandwana
    • 1
  • Oluwayemisi O. Ibraheem
    • 1
  • Kelly Cox
    • 1
  • Fredrick Murphy
    • 1
  • Pardeep Mittal
    • 1
  • William Small
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Imaging SciencesEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Emory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations