Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 10, pp 1567–1575 | Cite as

Comparison Between CT and MR Images as More Favorable Reference Data Sets for Fusion Imaging-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation or Biopsy of Hepatic Lesions: A Prospective Study with Focus on Patient’s Respiration

  • Dong Ik Cha
  • Min Woo LeeEmail author
  • Tae Wook Kang
  • Young-Taek Oh
  • Ja-Yeon Jeong
  • Jung-Woo Chang
  • Jiwon Ryu
  • Kyong Joon Lee
  • Jaeil Kim
  • Won-Chul Bang
  • Dong Kuk Shin
  • Sung Jin Choi
  • Dalkwon Koh
  • Kyunga Kim
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

To identify the more accurate reference data sets for fusion imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation or biopsy of hepatic lesions between computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) images.

Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was received from all patients. Twelve consecutive patients who were referred to assess the feasibility of radiofrequency ablation or biopsy were enrolled. Automatic registration using CT and MR images was performed in each patient. Registration errors during optimal and opposite respiratory phases, time required for image fusion and number of point locks used were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

The registration errors during optimal respiratory phase were not significantly different between image fusion using CT and MR images as reference data sets (p = 0.969). During opposite respiratory phase, the registration error was smaller with MR images than CT (p = 0.028). The time and the number of points locks needed for complete image fusion were not significantly different between CT and MR images (p = 0.328 and p = 0.317, respectively).

Conclusion

MR images would be more suitable as the reference data set for fusion imaging-guided procedures of focal hepatic lesions than CT images.

Keywords

Fusion imaging Ultrasonography Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Automatic registration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a Samsung Medison Grant [#PHO0132251].

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The funder only provided support in the form of salaries for authors who are employees of Samsung Medison. Authors who are employees of Samsung Electronics Co. [Y.O., J.J., J.C., J.R., K.J.L., J.K. and W.C.B.] or Samsung Medison [D.K.S., S.J.C. and D.K.] participated in the development of the S-Fusion, provided technical advices and analysis tools during the clinical trial and contributed in writing the manuscript, especially technical parts. Only the authors from Samsung Medical Center, Department of Radiology, had full control of the study design, data collection, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. One author (M.W.L.) is also a consultant for Samsung Medison.

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 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients for this prospective study.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee MW, Rhim H, Cha DI, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: fusion imaging guidance for management of lesions with poor conspicuity at conventional sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):1438–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirooka M, Iuchi H, Kumagi T, et al. Virtual sonographic radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma visualized on CT but not on conventional sonography. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(5_supplement):S255–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee MW, Rhim H, Cha DI, Kim YJ, Lim HK. Planning US for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small hepatocellular carcinomas (1–3 cm): value of fusion imaging with conventional US and CT/MR images. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(7):958–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu FY, Yu XL, Liang P, et al. Microwave ablation assisted by a real-time virtual navigation system for hepatocellular carcinoma undetectable by conventional ultrasonography. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(7):1455–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mauri G, Cova L, De Beni S, et al. Real-time US-CT/MRI image fusion for guidance of thermal ablation of liver tumors undetectable with US: results in 295 cases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38(1):143–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg SN, Grassi CJ, Cardella JF, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(7 Suppl):S377–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmed M, Brace CL, Lee FT Jr, Goldberg SN. Principles of and advances in percutaneous ablation. Radiology. 2011;258(2):351–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim JE, Kim YS, Rhim H, et al. Outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma referred for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation at a tertiary center: analysis focused on the feasibility with the use of ultrasonography guidance. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79(2):e80–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cha DI, Lee MW, Kim YK, et al. Assessing patients with hepatocellular carcinoma meeting the Milan criteria: is liver 3 tesla MR with gadoxetic acid necessary in addition to liver CT? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(4):842–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim SH, Kim SH, Lee J, et al. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI versus triple-phase MDCT for the preoperative detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(6):1675–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee JY, Choi BI, Chung YE, Kim MW, Kim SH, Han JK. Clinical value of CT/MR-US fusion imaging for radiofrequency ablation of hepatic nodules. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(9):2281–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee MW. Fusion imaging of real-time ultrasonography with CT or MRI for hepatic intervention. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(4):227–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cha DI, Lee MW, Kim AY, et al. Automatic image fusion of real-time ultrasound with computed tomography images: a prospective comparison between two auto-registration methods. Acta Radiol. 2017. doi: 10.1177/0284185117693459.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cha DI, Lee MW, Song KD, et al. A prospective comparison between auto-registration and manual registration of real-time ultrasound with MR images for percutaneous ablation or biopsy of hepatic lesions. Abdom Radiol. 2017. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1075-x.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crocetti L, Lencioni R, DeBeni S, See TC, Della Pina C, Bartolozzi C. Targeting liver lesions for radiofrequency ablation: an experimental feasibility study using a CT–US fusion imaging system. Invest Radiol. 2008;43(1):33–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suramo I, Paivansalo M, Myllyla V. Cranio-caudal movements of the liver, pancreas and kidneys in respiration. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1984;25(2):129–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balter JM, Ten Haken RK, Lawrence TS, Lam KL, Robertson JM. Uncertainties in CT-based radiation therapy treatment planning associated with patient breathing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36(1):167–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shimizu S, Shirato H, Xo B, et al. Three-dimensional movement of a liver tumor detected by high-speed magnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol. 1999;50(3):367–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mauri G, De Beni S, Forzoni L, et al. Virtual navigator automatic registration technology in abdominal application. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:5570–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kadoury S, Wood BJ, Venkatesan AM, Ardon R, Jago J, Kruecker J. Graph-based surface extraction of the liver using locally adaptive priors for multimodal interventional image registration. In: Proc. SPIE 8316, Medical imaging 2012: image-guided procedures, robotic interventions, and modeling. 2012. doi: 10.1117/12.911363.
  21. 21.
    Wein W, Brunke S, Khamene A, Callstrom MR, Navab N. Automatic CT-ultrasound registration for diagnostic imaging and image-guided intervention. Med Image Anal. 2008;12(5):577–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kunishi Y, Numata K, Morimoto M, et al. Efficacy of fusion imaging combining sonography and hepatobiliary phase MRI with Gd-EOB-DTPA to detect small hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(1):106–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong Ik Cha
    • 1
  • Min Woo Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tae Wook Kang
    • 1
  • Young-Taek Oh
    • 2
  • Ja-Yeon Jeong
    • 2
  • Jung-Woo Chang
    • 2
  • Jiwon Ryu
    • 2
  • Kyong Joon Lee
    • 2
  • Jaeil Kim
    • 2
  • Won-Chul Bang
    • 2
  • Dong Kuk Shin
    • 3
  • Sung Jin Choi
    • 3
  • Dalkwon Koh
    • 3
  • Kyunga Kim
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Medical Imaging R&D Group, Health & Medical Equipment BusinessSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd.SuwonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Infrastructure Technology Lab, R&D CenterSamsung MedisonSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology CenterSamsung Medical CenterSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations