Iodine material density images in dual-energy CT: quantification of contrast uptake and washout in HCC

  • Daniela Pfeiffer
  • Anushri Parakh
  • Manuel Patino
  • Avinash Kambadakone
  • Ernst J. Rummeny
  • Dushyant V. Sahani
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the diagnostic potential of Material Density (MD) iodine images in dual-energy CT (DECT) for visualization and quantification of arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout in hepatocellular carcinomas compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Materials and Methods

The study complied with HIPAA guidelines and was approved by the ethics committee of the institutional review board. Thirty-one patients (23 men, 8 women; age range, 36–87 years) with known or suspected Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) were included. All of them underwent both single-source DECT and MRI within less than 3 months. Late arterial phase and portal venous phase CT imaging was performed with dual energies of 140 and 80 kVp, and virtual monoenergetic images (at 65 keV) and MD-iodine images were generated. We determined the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for HCC in arterial phase and portal venous phase images. In addition, we introduced a new parameter which combines information of CNR in arterial and portal venous phase images into a single ratio (combined CNR). All parameters were assessed on monoenergetic 65 keV images, MD-iodine images, and MRI. Paired t test was used to compare CNR values in Mono-65 keV, MD-iodine, and MR images.

Results

CNR was significantly higher in the MD-iodine images in both the arterial (81.87 ± 40.42) and the portal venous phases (33.31 ± 27.86), compared to the Mono-65 keV (6.34 ± 4.23 and 1.89 ± 1.87) and MRI (30.48 ± 25.52 and 8.27 ± 8.36), respectively. Combined CNR assessment from arterial and portal venous phase showed higher contrast ratios for all imaging modalities (Mono-65 keV, 8.73 ± 4.03; MD-iodine, 119.87 ± 52.94; MRI, 34.87 ± 27.34). In addition, highest contrast ratio was achieved in MD-iodine images with combined CNR evaluation (119.87 ± 52.94, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

MD-iodine images in DECT allow for a quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement and washout, with improved CNR in hepatocellular carcinoma in comparison to MRI.

Keywords

Dual-energy CT Spectral CT Hepatocellular carcinoma Iodine images Washout 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

There was no funding for this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Approval for this HIPPA-compliant retrospective study and waiver of informed consent was obtained by the Institutional Review Board.

References

  1. 1.
    Yang JD, Roberts LR (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma: a global view. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:448–458CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, et al. (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 266:376–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanna RF, Miloushev VZ, Tang A, et al. (2016) Comparative 13-year meta-analysis of the sensitivity and positive predictive value of ultrasound, CT, and MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol 41:71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Martino M, Marin D, Guerrisi A, et al. (2010) Intraindividual comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and 64-section multidetector CT in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis 1. Radiology 256:806–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee JS, et al. (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 275:97–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhao YX, Suo HN, Zuo ZW, Xu YJ, Chang J (2016) A comparison of the image quality and radiation dose with routine computed tomography and the latest gemstone spectral imaging combination of different scanning protocols in computed tomography angiography of the kidney. J Comput Assist Tomogr 41:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patel BN, Alexander L, Allen B, et al. (2016) Dual-energy CT workflow: multi-institutional consensus on standardization of abdominopelvic MDCT protocols. Abdom Radiol 42:676–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marin D, Nelson RC, Samei E, et al. (2009) Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multidetector CT during late hepatic arterial phase for detection—initial clinical experience. Radiology 251(3):771–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muenzel D, Lo GC, Yu HS, et al. (2017) Material density iodine images in dual-energy CT: detection and characterization of hypervascular liver lesions compared to magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 95:300–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mileto A, Marin D, Alfaro-Cordoba M, et al. (2014) Iodine quantification to distinguish clear cell from papillary renal cell carcinoma at dual-energy multidetector CT: a multireader diagnostic performance study. Radiology 273:813–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parakh A, Patino M, Muenzel D, Kambadakone A, Sahani DV (2017) Role of rapid kV-switching dual-energy CT in assessment of post-surgical local recurrence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abdom Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1390-2 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang CB, Zhang S, Jia YJ, et al. (2017) Dual energy spectral CT imaging for the evaluation of small hepatocellular carcinoma microvascular invasion. Eur J Radiol 95:222–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Rossi P, et al. (2003) Hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with triple-phase multi-detector row helical CT in patients with chronic hepatitis. Radiology 226:543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee KH, O’Malley ME, Haider MA, Hanbidge A (2004) Triple-phase MDCT of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR 182:643–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elsayes KM, Hooker JC, Agrons MM, et al. (2017) 2017 version of LI-RADS for CT and MR imaging: an update. Radiographics 37:1994–2017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitzing YX, Ng BH, Kitzing B, et al. (2015) Washout of hepatocellular carcinoma on portal venous phase of multidetector computed tomography in a pre-transplant population. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 59:673–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu YI, Shin LK, Jeffrey RB, Kamaya A (2013) Quantitatively defining washout in hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR 200:84–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nino-Murcia M, Olcott EW, Jeffrey RB Jr, et al. (2000) Focal liver lesions: pattern-based classification scheme for enhancement at arterial phase CT. Radiology 215:746–751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kagawa Y, Okada M, Kumano S, et al. (2011) Optimal scanning protocol of arterial dominant phase for hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma with gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced MR. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:864–872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Division of Abdominal Imaging and InterventionMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations