Advertisement

CT’s Role for Myocardial Viability Assessment

  • Ahmed Hamdy
  • Kakuya KitagawaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)

Abstract

So far, the main clinical application for cardiac CT is reserved for the evaluation of the coronary arteries where it dominates over other noninvasive methods and is regarded as a gatekeeper for invasive catheterization (Shaw et al., J Am Coll Cardiol 60(20):2103–2114, 2012). On the contrary, its role for myocardial viability assessment has always been regarded premature and vulnerable. The very first attempts to find a place for CT in myocardial evaluation date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s (Gray et al., Circulation 58(3):497–504, 1978; Higgins et al., Circulation 60(2):284–291, 1979; Doherty et al., Circulation 63(3):597–606, 1981; Huber et al., Am J Roentgenol 136(3):469–473, 1981). These were animal studies performed with early generations of CT scanners. Frustrated with the slow machines, frequent artifacts, and low-resolution images, the modality was not further pursued as a clinical tool. Alternatively, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) emerged as a tissue characterizing modality that soon became a mature clinical tool for viability assessment, mainly by identifying areas of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE-MRI). Nearly 20 years later, the introduction of fast rotating, multi-slice CT (MSCT) technology made the door wide open for cardiac CT researchers to rediscover its potential in infarct imaging. This technical evolution accompanied with the fact that both iodinated and gadolinium-based extracellular contrast materials used for CT and MRI, respectively, share almost the same pharmacodynamics, led to renewed interest particularly in late enhancement CT (LE-CT) for viability assessment.

Keywords

CT and myocardial viability assessment Myocardial viability assessment Myocardial assessment with CT CT image post-processing Myocardial infarct detection Late enhancement cardiac CT Myocardial scar calcification Lipomatous metaplasia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hammermeister K, DeRouen T, Dodge H. Variables predictive of survival in patients with coronary disease. Selection by univariate and multivariate analyses from the clinical, electrocardiographic, exercise, arteriographic, and quantitative angiographic evaluations. Circulation. 1979;59(3):421–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harris PJ, et al. Survival in medically treated coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1979;60(6):1259–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muhlbaier LH, et al. Observational comparison of event-free survival with medical and surgical therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. 20 years of follow-up. Circulation. 1992;86(5 Suppl):II198–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emond M, et al. Long-term survival of medically treated patients in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry. Circulation. 1994;90(6):2645–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burns RJ, et al. The relationships of left ventricular ejection fraction, end-systolic volume index and infarct size to six-month mortality after hospital discharge following myocardial infarction treated by thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(1):30–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker DW, et al. Management of heart failure: III. The role of revascularization in the treatment of patients with moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. JAMA. 1994;272(19):1528–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allman KC, et al. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(7):1151–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaw LJ, et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiography as a gatekeeper to invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures: results from the multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT angiography evaluation for clinical outcomes: an international multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(20):2103–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray WR, et al. Computed tomography for localization and sizing of experimental acute myocardial infarcts. Circulation. 1978;58(3):497–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Higgins CB, et al. Evaluation of myocardial ischemic damage of various ages by computerized transmission tomography. Time-dependent effects of contrast material. Circulation. 1979;60(2):284–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doherty PW, et al. Detection and quantitation of myocardial infarction in vivo using transmission computed tomography. Circulation. 1981;63(3):597–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huber DJ, Lapray J, Hessel S. In vivo evaluation of experimental myocardial infarcts by ungated computed tomography. Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136(3):469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerber BL, et al. Characterization of acute and chronic myocardial infarcts by multidetector computed tomography comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance. Circulation. 2006;113(6):823–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lardo AC, et al. Contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography viability imaging after myocardial infarction characterization of myocyte death, microvascular obstruction, and chronic scar. Circulation. 2006;113(3):394–404.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swoboda PP, Plein S. Established and emerging cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques for prognostication and guiding therapy in heart failure. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2014;12(1):45–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Shriki JE, et al. Incidental myocardial infarct on conventional nongated CT: a review of the spectrum of findings with gated CT and cardiac MRI correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(3):496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kannel WB, Abbott RD. Incidence and prognosis of unrecognized myocardial infarction: an update on the Framingham study. N Engl J Med. 1984;311(18):1144–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baroldi G, et al. Lipomatous metaplasia in left ventricular scar. Can J Cardiol. 1997;13(1):65–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Su L, Siegel JE, Fishbein MC. Adipose tissue in myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Pathol. 2004;13(2):98–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kami D, et al. Cardiac mesenchymal progenitors differentiate into adipocytes via Klf4 and c-Myc. Cell Death Dis. 2016;7(4):e2190.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pouliopoulos J, et al. Intramyocardial adiposity post-myocardial infarction: new implications of a substrate for ventricular tachycardia. Circulation. 2013;128(21):2296–308. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002238
  23. 23.
    Sasaki T, et al. New insight into scar-related ventricular tachycardia circuits in ischemic cardiomyopathy: fat deposition after myocardial infarction on computed tomography--a pilot study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(7):1508–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ichikawa Y, et al. Adipose tissue detected by multislice computed tomography in patients after myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(5):548–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ahn SS, et al. CT detection of subendocardial fat in myocardial infarction. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):532–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gupta M, et al. Non-contrast cardiac computed tomography can accurately detect chronic myocardial infarction: validation study. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18(1):96–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nance JW, et al. Myocardial calcifications: pathophysiology, etiologies, differential diagnoses, and imaging findings. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(1):58–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freundlich I, Lind T. Calcification of the heart and great vessels. CRC Crit Rev Clin Radiol Nucl Med. 1975;6(2):171–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gowda RM, Boxt LM. Calcifications of the heart. Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42(3):603–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nieman K, et al. Differentiation of recent and chronic myocardial infarction by cardiac computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(3):303–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baer FM, et al. Comparison of low-dose dobutamine–gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with chronic coronary artery disease a functional and morphological approach to the detection of residual myocardial viability. Circulation. 1995;91(4):1006–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hoffmann U, et al. Acute myocardial infarction: contrast-enhanced multi–detector row CT in a porcine model 1. Radiology. 2004;231(3):697–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nikolaou K, et al. Assessment of myocardial infarctions using multidetector-row computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004;28(2):286–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Francone M, et al. ECG-gated multi-detector row spiral CT in the assessment of myocardial infarction: correlation with non-invasive angiographic findings. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(1):15–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanz J, et al. Detection of healed myocardial infarction with multidetector-row computed tomography and comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance delayed hyperenhancement. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(2):149–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mahnken AH, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability in reperfused acute myocardial infarction using 16-slice computed tomography in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(12):2042–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Henneman M, et al. Comprehensive cardiac assessment with multislice computed tomography: evaluation of left ventricular function and perfusion in addition to coronary anatomy in patients with previous myocardial infarction. Heart. 2006;92(12):1779–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Henneman MM, et al. Comparison of multislice computed tomography to gated single-photon emission computed tomography for imaging of healed myocardial infarcts. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(2):144–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Buecker A, et al. A feasibility study of contrast enhancement of acute myocardial infarction in multislice computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and gross morphology in pigs. Investig Radiol. 2005;40(11):700–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baks T, et al. Multislice computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of reperfused acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(1):144–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brodoefel H, et al. Sixty-four-MSCT in the characterization of porcine acute and subacute myocardial infarction: determination of transmurality in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62(2):235–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Qu X, et al. Acute and chronic myocardial infarction in a pig model: utility of multi-slice cardiac computed tomography in assessing myocardial viability and infarct parameters. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(4):e431–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mahnken AH, et al. Late-phase MSCT in the different stages of myocardial infarction: animal experiments. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(9):2310–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Choe YH, et al. Comparison of MDCT and MRI in the detection and sizing of acute and chronic myocardial infarcts. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66(2):292–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nieman K, et al. Reperfused myocardial infarction: contrast-enhanced 64-section CT in comparison to MR imaging 1. Radiology. 2008;247(1):49–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Habis M, et al. Acute myocardial infarction early viability assessment by 64-slice computed tomography immediately after coronary angiography: comparison with low-dose dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(11):1178–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chiou K-R, et al. Identification and viability assessment of infarcted myocardium with late enhancement multidetector computed tomography: comparison with thallium single photon emission computed tomography and echocardiography. Am Heart J. 2008;155(4):738–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee IH, et al. Comparison of multidetector CT with F-18-FDG-PET and SPECT in the assessment of myocardial viability in patients with myocardial infarction: a preliminary study. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72(3):401–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dwivedi G, et al. Scar imaging using multislice computed tomography versus metabolic imaging by F-18 FDG positron emission tomography: a pilot study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(2):739–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sado DM, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurement of myocardial extracellular volume in health and disease. Heart. 2012;98(19):1436–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302346
  51. 51.
    Jablonowski R, et al. Multidetector CT measurement of myocardial extracellular volume in acute patchy and contiguous infarction: validation with microscopic measurement. Radiology. 2014;274(2):370–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nacif MS, et al. Interstitial myocardial fibrosis assessed as extracellular volume fraction with low-radiation-dose cardiac CT. Radiology. 2012;264(3):876–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bandula S, et al. Measurement of myocardial extracellular volume fraction by using equilibrium contrast-enhanced CT: validation against histologic findings. Radiology. 2013;269(2):396–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Treibel TA, et al. Extracellular volume quantification by dynamic equilibrium cardiac computed tomography in cardiac amyloidosis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(6):585–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kurita Y, et al. Data on correlation between CT-derived and MRI-derived myocardial extracellular volume. Data Brief. 2016;7:1045–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kurita Y, et al. Estimation of myocardial extracellular volume fraction with cardiac CT in subjects without clinical coronary artery disease: a feasibility study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10(3):237–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kato M, et al. Plain computed tomography for assessment of early coronary microcirculatory damage after revascularization therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2006;70(11):1475–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jang Y, et al. Viability assessment after conventional coronary angiography using a novel cardiovascular interventional therapeutic CT system: comparison with gross morphology in a subacute infarct swine model. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(4):321–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Deseive S, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography for the detection of late enhancement in reperfused chronic infarction: a comparison to magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology in a porcine model. Investig Radiol. 2011;46(7):450–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wichmann JL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of late iodine–enhancement dual-energy computed tomography for the detection of chronic myocardial infarction compared with late gadolinium–enhancement 3-T magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol. 2013;48(12):851–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Truong QA, et al. Myocardial scar imaging by standard single-energy and dual-energy late enhancement CT: comparison with pathology and electroanatomic map in an experimental chronic infarct porcine model. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(4):313–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lee H-J, et al. Myocardial extracellular volume fraction with dual-energy equilibrium contrast-enhanced cardiac CT in nonischemic cardiomyopathy: a prospective comparison with cardiac MR imaging. Radiology. 2016;280(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151289
  63. 63.
    Kurobe Y, et al. Myocardial delayed enhancement with dual-source CT: advantages of targeted spatial frequency filtration and image averaging over half-scan reconstruction. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2014;8(4):289–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Brodoefel H, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability in a reperfused porcine model: evaluation of different MSCT contrast protocols in acute and subacute infarct stages in comparison with MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(2):290–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Goetti R, et al. Delayed enhancement imaging of myocardial viability: low-dose high-pitch CT versus MRI. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(10):2091–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jacquier A, et al. Multidetector computed tomography in reperfused acute myocardial infarction: assessment of infarct size and no-reflow in comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol. 2008;43(11):773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Brodoefel H, et al. Late myocardial enhancement assessed by 64-MSCT in reperfused porcine myocardial infarction: diagnostic accuracy of low-dose CT protocols in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(2):475–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mahnken AH, et al. Low tube voltage improves computed tomography imaging of delayed myocardial contrast enhancement in an experimental acute myocardial infarction model. Investig Radiol. 2007;42(2):123–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reimann AJ, et al. Late enhancement using multidetector row computer tomography: a feasibility study with low dose 80kV protocol. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66(1):127–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chang H-J, et al. Prospective electrocardiogram-gated delayed enhanced multidetector computed tomography accurately quantifies infarct size and reduces radiation exposure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(4):412–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wang R, et al. Low dose prospective ECG-gated delayed enhanced dual-source computed tomography in reperfused acute myocardial infarction comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(2):326–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ramirez-Giraldo JC, et al. A strategy to decrease partial scan reconstruction artifacts in myocardial perfusion CT: phantom and in vivo evaluation. Med Phys. 2012;39(1):214–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Reimer KA, et al. The wavefront phenomenon of ischemic cell death. 1. Myocardial infarct size vs duration of coronary occlusion in dogs. Circulation. 1977;56(5):786–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Koyama Y, et al. Assessment of reperfused acute myocardial infarction with two-phase contrast-enhanced helical ct: prediction of left ventricular function and wall thickness 1. Radiology. 2005;235(3):804–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wada H, et al. Multi-detector computed tomography for imaging of subendocardial infarction-prediction of wall motion recovery after Reperfused anterior myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2004;68(5):512–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Shapiro MD, et al. Cardiac computed tomography for prediction of myocardial viability after reperfused acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2010;4(4):267–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sato A, et al. Early validation study of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of myocardial viability and the prediction of left ventricular remodelling after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2008 Feb;29(4):490–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ogasawara S, et al. Presence of myocardial hypoenhancement on multidetector computed tomography after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction predicts poor prognosis. Int J Cardiol. 2015;184:101–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Watabe H, et al. Enhancement patterns detected by multidetector computed tomography are associated with microvascular obstruction and left ventricular remodelling in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(8):684–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kim T, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability using multidetector computed tomography in patients with reperfused acute myocardial infarction. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(8):754–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lessick J, et al. Is functional improvement after myocardial infarction predicted with myocardial enhancement patterns at multidetector CT? 1. Radiology. 2007;244(3):736–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sato A, et al. Prognostic value of myocardial contrast delayed enhancement with 64-slice multidetector computed tomography after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(8):730–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kühl JT, et al. The transmural extent and severity of myocardial hypoperfusion predicts long-term outcome in NSTEMI: an MDCT study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(6):684–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ghoshhajra BB, et al. Infarct detection with a comprehensive cardiac CT protocol. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(1):14–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Williams M, et al. Cardiac and coronary CT comprehensive imaging approach in the assessment of coronary heart disease. Heart. 2011;97(15):1198–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Williams MC, et al. A low-dose comprehensive cardiac CT protocol assessing anatomy, function, perfusion, and viability. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013;7(1):69–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Nakamura S, et al. Frequency of perfusion abnormality on quantitative myocardial CT perfusion imaging in patients with no, non-obstructive, and obstructive coronary artery disease on coronary CT angiography. 11th annual scientific meeting abstracts, 2016. poster no. 161.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bettencourt N, et al. CAD detection in patients with intermediate-high pre-test probability: low-dose CT delayed enhancement detects ischemic myocardial scar with moderate accuracy but does not improve performance of a stress-rest CT perfusion protocol. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(10):1062–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Boussel L, et al. Assessment of acute myocardial infarction using MDCT after percutaneous coronary intervention: comparison with MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):441–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kang DK, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography for integrative imaging of coronary artery disease: principles and clinical applications. In: Seminars in ultrasound, CT and MRI. New York: Elsevier; 2010.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    George RT, et al. Computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with 320-row detector computed tomography accurately detects myocardial ischemia in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(3):333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMie University HospitalTsuJapan

Personalised recommendations