Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Analysis of Intra-arterial Cone-Beam Versus Conventional Computed Tomography During Hepatic Arteriography for Transarterial Chemoembolization Planning

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Imaging
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the imaging characteristics of intra-arterial cone-beam computed tomography during hepatic arteriography (CBCTHA) versus intra-arterial computed tomography during hepatic arteriography (CTHA) for intraprocedural transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) planning.

Materials and Methods

This single-institution retrospective study included 144 patients (96 men, mean age 67.9 years; 48 women, mean age 62.3 years) who underwent 181 TACE sessions between January 2015 and July 2017. Intraprocedural CBCTHA (111 procedures) or CTHA (70 procedures) was performed for TACE planning. Reformatted maximum intensity projection CBCTHA and CTHA images were reviewed by two radiologists and classified using an ordinal scoring system (for tumor identification, tumor feeder vessel identification, and streaking artifact) and a binary scoring system (for the presence of breathing motion artifact and field of view encompassing the entire liver). Data were analyzed using an F test and a z-score test.

Results

There were no significant differences in demographic and tumor characteristics between the CBCTHA and CTHA patient cohorts. CTHA was superior to CBCTHA for tumor identification (P < .0001), tumor feeder vessel identification (P < .05), streaking artifact (P < .0001), and field of view encompassing the entire liver (P < .0001). There was a trend toward a lower frequency of breathing motion artifact with CTHA than with CBCTHA (1.4% vs. 10%; P = .057).

Conclusion

CTHA provides improved clinical relevant imaging information compared to CBCTHA for intraprocedural TACE planning.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Takayasu K, Muramatsu Y, Maeda T, et al. Targeted transarterial oily chemoembolization for small foci of hepatocellular carcinoma using a unified helical CT and angiography system: analysis of factors affecting local recurrence and survival rates. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:681–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tacher V, Radaelli A, Lin M, Geschwind JF. How I do it: cone-beam CT during transarterial chemoembolization for liver cancer. Radiology. 2015;274:320–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wallace MJ, Kuo MD, Glaiberman C, et al. Three-dimensional C-arm cone-beam CT: applications in the interventional suite. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20:S523–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee IJ, Chung JW, Yin YH, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) hepatic arteriography in chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: performance depicting tumors and tumor feeders. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38:1218–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Inoue A. Development of a hybrid CT/angiography system. Med Rev. 1993;43:9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH. Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2000;27:1311–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ning R, Chen B, Yu R, Conover D, Tang X, Ning Y. Flat panel detector-based cone-beam volume CT angiography imaging: system evaluation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000;19:949–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wallace MJ, Murthy R, Kamat PP, et al. Impact of C-arm CT on hepatic arterial interventions for hepatic malignancies. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:1500–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, et al. Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial X-ray cone beam CT scanner (CB MercuRay): system configuration and physical properties. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2004;33:51–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Finkenstaedt T, Morsbach F, Calcagni M, et al. Metallic artifacts from internal scaphoid fracture fixation screws: comparison between C-arm flat-panel, cone-beam, and multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2014;49:532–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Toyoda H, Kumada T, Sone Y. Impact of a unified CT angiography system on outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:766–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Iwazawa J, Ohue S, Hashimoto N, Muramoto O, Mitani T. Survival after C-arm CT-assisted chemoembolization of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:3985–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Takada K, Toyoda H, Tada T, et al. Accurate and rapid identification of feeding arteries with multidetector-row angiography-assisted computed tomography for transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol. 2015;50:1190–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tanaka T, Arai Y, Inaba Y, et al. Current role of hybrid CT/angiography system compared with C-arm cone beam CT for interventional oncology. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20140126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schegerer AA, Lechel U, Ritter M, Weisser G, Fink C, Brix G. Dose and image quality of cone-beam computed tomography as compared with conventional multislice computed tomography in abdominal imaging. Invest Radiol. 2014;49:675–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kohlbrenner R, Kolli KP, Taylor AG, et al. Patient radiation dose reduction during transarterial chemoembolization using a novel X-ray imaging platform. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:1331–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data-analysis using generalized linear-models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huber PJ. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 1: statistics. Berkeley, California: University of California Press; 1967. p. 221–33.

  19. White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance-matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kakeda S, Korogi Y, Ohnari N, et al. Usefulness of cone-beam volume CT with flat panel detectors in conjunction with catheter angiography for transcatheter arterial embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:1508–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Minami Y, Yagyu Y, Murakami T, Kudo M. Tracking navigation imaging of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using three-dimensional cone-beam CT angiography. Liver Cancer. 2014;3:53–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Iwazawa J, Ohue S, Mitani T, et al. Identifying feeding arteries during TACE of hepatic tumors: comparison of C-arm CT and digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1057–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Hashimoto M, et al. Identification of small hepatocellular carcinoma and tumor-feeding branches with cone-beam CT guidance technology during transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:501–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Iwazawa J, Ohue S, Kitayama T, Sassa S, Mitani T. C-arm CT for assessing initial failure of iodized oil accumulation in chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:W337–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pung L, Ahmad M, Mueller K, et al. The role of cone-beam CT in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28:334–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Murakami T, Oi H, Hori M, et al. Helical CT during arterial portography and hepatic arteriography for detecting hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:131–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Inaba Y, Arai Y, Kanematsu M, et al. Revealing hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: value of combined helical CT during arterial portography and CT hepatic arteriography with a unified CT and angiography system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:955–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Al-Ekrish AA, Ekram M. A comparative study of the accuracy and reliability of multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011;40:67–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones AK. An apples to apples comparison of radiation dose and image quality between flat panel CT and multidetector CT. In: Presented at society of interventional radiology 2018 annual scientific meeting, Los Angeles; 2018.

  30. Steuwe A, Geisbusch P, Schulz CJ, Bockler D, Kauczor HU, Stiller W. Comparison of radiation exposure associated with intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography and follow-up multidetector computed tomography angiography for evaluating endovascular aneurysm repairs. J Endovasc Therapy. 2016;23:583–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Stephanie Deming, an employee of the Department of Scientific Publications, MD Anderson Cancer Center, for copyediting the manuscript. This research was supported in part by the National Institute of Health through MD Anderson’s Cancer Center Support Grant, CA016672.

Funding

This study was funded in part by the National Institute of Health through MD Anderson’s Cancer Center Support Grant, CA016672.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Ethan Y. Lin & Bruno C. Odisio

  2. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    A. Kyle Jones

  3. Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc., 2501 North Barrington Road, Hoffman Estates, IL, 60192, USA

    Gouthami Chintalapani

  4. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Zachary S. Jeng

  5. The Houston Methodist Research Institute, 6670 Bertner Ave, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Joe Ensor

Authors
  1. Ethan Y. Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Kyle Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gouthami Chintalapani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zachary S. Jeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joe Ensor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruno C. Odisio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno C. Odisio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Gouthami Chintalapani is an employee of Siemens Healthineers. Bruno C. Odisio has a research Grant from Siemens Healthineers.

Ethical Approval

This single-institution retrospective study was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by our Institutional Review Board.

Informed Consent

For this type of retrospective study, informed consent was waived by our Institutional Review Board.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication was obtained for every individual person’s data included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, E.Y., Jones, A.K., Chintalapani, G. et al. Comparative Analysis of Intra-arterial Cone-Beam Versus Conventional Computed Tomography During Hepatic Arteriography for Transarterial Chemoembolization Planning. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 42, 591–600 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-2116-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-2116-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation