Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4775–4782 | Cite as

Can quantitative iodine parameters on DECT replace perfusion CT parameters in colorectal cancers?

  • Hyo-Jin Kang
  • Se Hyung Kim
  • Jae Seok Bae
  • Sun Kyung Jeon
  • Joon Koo Han
Gastrointestinal
  • 195 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the correlation between iodine concentrations derived from dual-energy CT (DECT) and perfusion CT (PCT) parameters in patients with pathologically proven colorectal cancers (CRC) and to evaluate their reproducibility and respective radiation exposures.

Methods

Institutional review board approval and written informed consents were obtained for this study. Forty-one patients with CRCs who underwent same-day DECT and PCT were prospectively enrolled. Three radiologists independently analyzed the iodine concentration of the tumors and iodine ratios [ratio of lesion to aorta (IRa) or to infrarenal IVC (IRv)] from DECT as well as blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), permeability (PMB), and mean transit time (MTT) from PCT. Pearson R and linear correlation, paired t-test, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used.

Results

Significant correlations were found between iodine parameters from DECT and PCT parameters: iodine concentration of tumors and BV (r = 0.32, p = 0.04), PMB (r = 0.34, p = 0.03), and MTT (r = -0.38, p = 0.02); iodine ratio (IRa) and MTT (r = -0.32, p = 0.04); iodine ratio (IRv) and BF (r = 0.32, p = 0.04) and PMB (r = 0.44, p = <0.01). DECT showed better intra- and interobserver agreements (ICC = 0.98, 0.90 in iodine concentration; 0.98, 0.91 in IRa; and 0.91, 0.93 in IRv, respectively) than PCT (ICC = 0.90, 0.78 in BF; 0.82, 0.76 in BV; 0.75, 0.75 in PMB; 0.64, 0.79 in MTT, respectively). As for radiation dosage, CTDIvol and DLP in DECT (10.48 ± 1.84 mGy and 519.7 ± 116.7 mGy·cm) were significantly lower than those of PCT (75.76 mGy and 911 mGy·cm) (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Iodine parameters from DECT are significantly correlated with PCT parameters, but have higher intra- and interobserver agreements and lower radiation exposure.

Key Points

• Quantitative iodine concentrations from DECT are significantly correlated with perfusion CT parameters.

• Intra- and interobserver agreements of DECT are better than those of perfusion CT.

• Effective radiation doses of DECT are significantly lower than those of perfusion CT.

• DECT can be used as an alternative to perfusion CT with lower radiation doses.

Keywords

Colorectal neoplasms Perfusion Multidetector computed tomography 

Abbreviations

BF

Blood flow

BV

Blood volume

CRC

Colorectal cancer

CTDIvol

Computed tomography dose index volume

DECT

Dual-energy CT

DLP

Dose length product

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

ICt

Iodine concentration

IRa

Iodine concentration ratio of the tumor to aorta

IRv

Iodine concentration ratio of the tumor to inferior vena cava

IVC

Inferior vena cava

MTT

Mean transit time

MVD

Microvessel density

PCT

Perfusion CT

PMB

Permeability surface area product

ROI

Region of interest

VEGF

Vascular endothelial growth factor

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (2016R1A2B4007762).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Se Hyung Kim.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• cross-sectional study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Ajiki T, Fujimori T, Ikehara H, Saitoh Y, Maeda S (1995) K-ras gene mutation related to histological atypias in human colorectal adenomas. Biotech Histochem 70:90–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rak J, Mitsuhashi Y, Bayko L et al (1995) Mutant ras oncogenes upregulate VEGF/VPF expression: implications for induction and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Res 55:4575–4580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Des Guetz G, Uzzan B, Nicolas P et al (2006) Microvessel density and VEGF expression are prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis of the literature. Br J Cancer 94:1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee JC, Chow NH, Wang ST, Huang SM (2000) Prognostic value of vascular endothelial growth factor expression in colorectal cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 36:748–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sahani DV, Holalkere N-S, Mueller PR, Zhu AX (2007) Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: CT perfusion of liver and tumor tissue—initial experience. Radiology 243:736–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim JW, Jeong YY, Chang NK et al (2012) Perfusion CT in colorectal cancer: comparison of perfusion parameters with tumor grade and microvessel density. Korean J Radiol 13 Suppl 1:S89–S97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goh V, Halligan S, Daley F, Wellsted DM, Guenther T, Bartram CI (2008) Colorectal tumor vascularity: quantitative assessment with multidetector CT—do tumor perfusion measurements reflect angiogenesis? Radiology 249:510–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Hamberg LM et al (2005) Assessing tumor perfusion and treatment response in rectal cancer with multisection CT: initial observations. Radiology 234:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morsbach F, Pfammatter T, Reiner CS et al (2013) Computed tomographic perfusion imaging for the prediction of response and survival to transarterial radioembolization of liver metastases. Invest Radiol 48:787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maaß C, Baer M, Kachelrieß M (2009) Image-based dual energy CT using optimized precorrection functions: A practical new approach of material decomposition in image domain. Med Phys 36:3818–3829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goo HW, Goo JM (2017) Dual-energy CT: new horizon in medical imaging. Korean J Radiol 18:555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271:327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agrawal MD, Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Sahani DV (2014) Oncologic applications of dual-energy CT in the abdomen. Radiographics 34:589–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan DE (2014) Dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Abdom Imaging 39:108–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stiller W, Skornitzke S, Fritz F et al (2015) Correlation of quantitative dual-energy computed tomography iodine maps and abdominal computed tomography perfusion measurements: are single-acquisition dual-energy computed tomography iodine maps more than a reduced-dose surrogate of conventional computed tomography perfusion? Invest Radiol 50:703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordic S, Puippe GD, Krauss B et al (2016) Correlation between dual-energy and perfusion CT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 280:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fuld MK, Halaweish AF, Haynes SE, Divekar AA, Guo J, Hoffman EA (2013) Pulmonary perfused blood volume with dual-energy CT as surrogate for pulmonary perfusion assessed with dynamic multidetector CT. Radiology 267:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goh V, Halligan S, Gharpuray A, Wellsted D, Sundin J, Bartram CI (2008) Quantitative assessment of colorectal cancer tumor vascular parameters by using perfusion CT: influence of tumor region of interest. Radiology 247:726–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bongartz G, Golding S, Jurik A et al (2004) European guidelines for multislice computed tomography. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bellomi M, Petralia G, Sonzogni A, Zampino MG, Rocca A (2007) CT perfusion for the monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in rectal carcinoma: initial experience. Radiology 244:486–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research CenterSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations