Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 2978–2988 | Cite as

Improved image quality in abdominal CT in patients who underwent treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with small metal implants using a raw data-based metal artifact reduction algorithm

  • Keitaro SofueEmail author
  • Takeshi Yoshikawa
  • Yoshiharu Ohno
  • Noriyuki Negi
  • Hiroyasu Inokawa
  • Naoki Sugihara
  • Kazuro Sugimura
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the value of a raw data-based metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) algorithm for image quality improvement in abdominal CT for patients with small metal implants.

Methods

Fifty-eight patients with small metal implants (3–15 mm in size) who underwent treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma were imaged with CT. CT data were reconstructed by filtered back projection with and without SEMAR algorithm in axial and coronal planes. To evaluate metal artefact reduction, mean CT number (HU and SD) and artefact index (AI) values within the liver were calculated. Two readers independently evaluated image quality of the liver and pancreas and visualization of vasculature using a 5-point visual score. HU and AI values and image quality on images with and without SEMAR were compared using the paired Student’s t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using linear-weighted κ test.

Results

Mean HU and AI on images with SEMAR was significantly lower than those without SEMAR (P < 0.0001). Liver and pancreas image qualities and visualizations of vasculature were significantly improved on CT with SEMAR (P < 0.0001) with substantial or almost perfect agreement (0.62 ≤ κ ≤ 0.83).

Conclusions

SEMAR can improve image quality in abdominal CT in patients with small metal implants by reducing metallic artefacts.

Key Points

SEMAR algorithm significantly reduces metallic artefacts from small implants in abdominal CT.

SEMAR can improve image quality of the liver in dynamic CECT.

Confidence visualization of hepatic vascular anatomies can also be improved by SEMAR.

Keywords

Computed tomography Metal artefact reduction Liver Hepatocellular carcinoma Abdominal 

Abbreviations

AI

Artefact index

CECT

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography

FBP

Filtered back projection

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

SEMAR

Single-energy metal artefact reduction

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank to Sumiaki Matsumoto, MD, PhD (Advanced Biomedical Imaging Research Center, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, and Functional and Diagnostic Imaging Research, Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine), Koji Sugimoto, MD, PhD, Masato Yamaguchi, MD, PhD (Center for Endovascular Therapy, Kobe University Hospital), Yonson Ku, MD, PhD, Takumi Fukumoto, MD, PhD (Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine), and Yoshihiko Yano, MD, PhD (Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate, School of Medicine) for their contributions to this work.

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Keitaro Sofue. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Toshiba Medical Systems – research support for Takeshi Yoshikawa and Yoshiharu Ohno, and employment for Hiroyasu Inokawa and Naoki Sugihara. This work was technically and financially supported by Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, and financially supported by Bayer Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Co. Ltd. and Eisai Co. Ltd. in the form of research grants. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, observational study, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Fattovich G, Stroffolini T, Zagni I, Donato F (2004) Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology 127:S35–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leong QM, Lai HK, Lo RG, Teo TK, Goh A, Chow PK (2009) Radiation dermatitis following radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case for prophylactic embolization of a patent falciform artery. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:833–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vente MA, Wondergem M, van der Tweel I et al (2009) Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolization for the treatment of liver malignancies: a structured meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 19:951–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fukumoto T, Tominaga M, Kido M et al (2014) Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors with reductive hepatectomy and sequential percutaneous isolated hepatic perfusion for multiple bilobar hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 21:971–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sofue K, Tsurusaki M, Kawasaki R, Fujii M, Sugimura K (2011) Evaluation of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic liver: comparison of different concentrations of contrast material with multi-detector row helical CT--a prospective randomized study. Eur J Radiol 80:e237–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guiney MJ, Kruskal JB, Sosna J, Hanto DW, Goldberg SN, Raptopoulos V (2003) Multi-detector row CT of relevant vascular anatomy of the surgical plane in split-liver transplantation. Radiology 229:401–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim I, Kim DJ, Kim KA, Yoon SW, Lee JT (2014) Feasibility of MDCT angiography for determination of tumor-feeding vessels in chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:742–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jiang T, Kambadakone A, Kulkarni NM, Zhu AX, Sahani DV (2012) Monitoring response to antiangiogenic treatment and predicting outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma using image biomarkers, CT perfusion, tumor density, and tumor size (RECIST). Investig Radiol 47:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalender WA, Hebel R, Ebersberger J (1987) Reduction of CT artifacts caused by metallic implants. Radiology 164:576–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watzke O, Kalender WA (2004) A pragmatic approach to metal artifact reduction in CT: merging of metal artifact reduced images. Eur Radiol 14:849–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Kachelrie M, Kalender WA (2010) Reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography caused by hip endoprostheses using a physics-based approach. Investig Radiol 45:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boas FE, Fleischmann D (2011) Evaluation of two iterative techniques for reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography. Radiology 259:894–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lell MM, Meyer E, Kuefner MA et al (2012) Normalized metal artifact reduction in head and neck computed tomography. Investig Radiol 47:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR (2011) Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 21:1424–1429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brook OR, Gourtsoyianni S, Brook A, Mahadevan A, Wilcox C, Raptopoulos V (2012) Spectral CT with metal artifacts reduction software for improvement of tumor visibility in the vicinity of gold fiducial markers. Radiology 263:696–705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lell MM, Meyer E, Schmid M et al (2013) Frequency split metal artefact reduction in pelvic computed tomography. Eur Radiol 23:2137–2145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morsbach F, Wurnig M, Kunz DM et al (2013) Metal artefact reduction from dental hardware in carotid CT angiography using iterative reconstructions. Eur Radiol 23:2687–2694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Wanner GA, Krauss A, Schmidt B, Alkadhi H (2013) Reduction of metal artifacts from hip prostheses on CT images of the pelvis: value of iterative reconstructions. Radiology 268:237–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kidoh M, Nakaura T, Nakamura S et al (2014) Reduction of dental metallic artefacts in CT: value of a newly developed algorithm for metal artefact reduction (O-MAR). Clin Radiol 69:e11–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gondim Teixeira PA, Meyer JB, Baumann C et al (2014) Total hip prosthesis CT with single-energy projection-based metallic artifact reduction: impact on the visualization of specific periprosthetic soft tissue structures. Skelet Radiol 43:1237–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeong S, Kim SH, Hwang EJ, Shin CI, Han JK, Choi BI (2015) Usefulness of a metal artifact reduction algorithm for orthopedic implants in abdominal CT: phantom and clinical study results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:307–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kidoh M, Utsunomiya D, Ikeda O et al (2016) Reduction of metallic coil artefacts in computed tomography body imaging: effects of a new single-energy metal artefact reduction algorithm. Eur Radiol 26:1378–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marin D, Catalano C, De Filippis G et al (2009) Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: added value of coronal reformations from isotropic voxels with 64-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:180–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Motoyama T, Ogasawara S, Chiba T et al (2014) Coronal reformatted CT images contribute to the precise evaluation of the radiofrequency ablative margin for hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 39:262–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sandrasegaran K, Rydberg J, Tann M, Hawes DR, Kopecky KK, Maglinte DD (2007) Benefits of routine use of coronal and sagittal reformations in multi-slice CT examination of the abdomen and pelvis. Clin Radiol 62:340–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang Y, Qian B, Li B et al (2013) Metal artifacts reduction using monochromatic images from spectral CT: evaluation of pedicle screws in patients with scoliosis. Eur J Radiol 82:e360–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Nishibori H et al (2013) Image quality and radiation exposure in CT of the pancreas: 320-MDCT with and without adaptive iterative dose reduction versus 64-MDCT. Clin Radiol 68:e593–600Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Osterhoff G et al (2012) Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels. Eur Radiol 22:2357–2364Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mamourian AC, Erkmen K, Pluta DJ (2008) Nonhelical acquisition CT angiogram after aneurysmal clipping: in vitro testing shows diminished artifact. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29:660–662Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taguchi N, Oda S, Utsunomiya D et al (2016) Using 80 kVp on a 320-row scanner for hepatic multiphasic CT reduces the contrast dose by 50% in patients at risk for contrast-induced nephropathy. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4435-y

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keitaro Sofue
    • 1
    Email author
  • Takeshi Yoshikawa
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yoshiharu Ohno
    • 2
    • 3
  • Noriyuki Negi
    • 4
  • Hiroyasu Inokawa
    • 5
  • Naoki Sugihara
    • 5
  • Kazuro Sugimura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan
  2. 2.Advanced Biomedical Imaging Research CenterKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan
  3. 3.Division of Functional and Diagnostic Imaging Research, Department of RadiologyKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan
  4. 4.Division of RadiologyKobe University HospitalKobeJapan
  5. 5.Toshiba Medical Systems CorporationOtawaraJapan

Personalised recommendations