Advertisement

Liver Cancer pp 237-240 | Cite as

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Effect of Injection Rate/Injection Duration of Contrast Material on Computed Tomography

  • Tomoaki Ichikawa
  • Tsutomu Araki
Chapter
  • 1.6k Downloads
Part of the Methods of Cancer Diagnosis, Therapy and Prognosis book series (HAYAT, volume 5)

Multiphasic, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scanning has improved the detection and characterization of focal hepatic lesions, such as hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) (Ohashi et al., 1993; Hollett et al., 1995; Baron et al., 1996). It has been well established that hepatic arterial-dominant phase (HAP) scanning is essential to detect hypervascular HCC. Hepatic arterial-dominant phase images can detect a larger number of HCC (67/81, 83%) than any other phases including unenhanced, portal venous phase (PVP), and delayed phase (DP) images (Hwang et al., 1997). In addition, some hypervas-cular HCC (26–32%) are only seen or are most conspicuous on HAP images (Hwang et al., 1997; Mitsuzaki et al., 1996).

The injection rate of the contrast material is one of the most important technique-related factors for detecting hypervascular HCC on HAP images. The enhancement of the aorta (including hepatic artery) on HAP images significantly increases at higher injection rates of contrast material (Tublin et al., 1999; Kim et al., 1998). Based on these results, it was suggested that higher injection rates of contrast material can improve hypervascular hepatic lesion detection (Kim et al., 1995).

Keywords

Injection Rate Helical Compute Tomography Cirrhotic Liver Injection Protocol Injection Duration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Awai, K., and Hori, S. 2003. Effect of contrast injection protocol with dose tailored to patient weight and fixed injection duration on aortic and hepatic enhancement at multidetector-row helical CT. Eur. Radiol. 13: 2155–2160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awai, K., Hiraishi, K., and Hori, S. 2004. Effect of contrast material injection duration and rate on aortic peak time and peak enhancement at dynamic CT involving injection protocol with dose tailored to patient weight. Radiology 230: 142–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bae, K.T. 2003. Peak contrast enhancement in CT and MR angiography: when does it occur and why? Pharmacokinetic study in a porcine model. Radiology 227: 809–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bae, K.T., Heiken, J.P., and Brink, J.A. 1998. Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part II. Effect of reduced cardiac output in a porcine model. Radiology 207: 657–662.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, R.L., Oliver, J.H., Dodd, G.D., Nalesnik, M., Holbert, B.L., and Carr, B. 1996.Google Scholar
  6. Hepatocellular carcinoma: Evaluation with biphasic, contrast-enhanced, helical CT. Radiology 199: 505–511.Google Scholar
  7. Hollett, M.D., Jeffrey, R.B., Nino-Murcia, M., Jorgensen, M.J., and Harris, D.P. 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Dual-phase helical CT of the liver: value of arterial phase scans in the detection of small (<1.5 cm) malignant hepatic neoplasms. Am. J. Radiol. 164: 879–884.Google Scholar
  9. Hwang, G.J., Kim, M.J., Yoo, H.S., and Lee, J.T. 1997. Nodular hepatocellular carcinomas: detection with arterial-, portal-, and delayed-phase images at spiral CT. Radiology 202: 383–388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ichikawa, T., Erturk, S.M., and Araki, T. 2006a. Multiphasic contrast-enhanced multidetector-row CT of liver: contrast-enhancement theory and practical scan protocol with a combination of fixed injection duration and patients' body-weight-tailored dose of contrast material. Eur. J. Radiol. 58: 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ichikawa, T., Nakajima, H., Nanbu, A., Hori, M., and Araki, T. 2006b. Effect of injection rate of contrast material on CT of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am. J. Radiol. 186: 1413–1418.Google Scholar
  12. Kim, T., Murakami, T., and Oi, H. 1995. Detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma by dynamic MRI and dynamic spiral CT. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 19: 948–954.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim, T., Murakami, T., and Takahashi, S. 1998. Effects of injection rates of contrast material on arterial phase hepatic CT. Am. J. Radiol. 171: 429–432.Google Scholar
  14. Mitsuzaki, K., Yamashita, Y., Ogata, I., Nishiharu, T., Urata, J., and Takahashi, M. 1996. Multiple-phase helical CT of the liver for detecting small hepatomas in patients with liver cirrhosis: contrast-injection protocol and optimal timing. Am. J. Radiol. 167: 753–757.Google Scholar
  15. Ohashi, I., Hanafusa, K., and Yoshida, T. 1993. Small hepatocellular carcinomas: two-phase dynamic incremental CT in detection and evaluation. Radiology 189: 851–855.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Tublin, M.E., Tessler, F.N., Cheng, S.L., Peters, T.L., and McGovern, P.C. 1999. Effect of injection rate of contrast medium on pancreatic and hepatic helical CT. Radiology 210: 97–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Yu, J.S., Kim, K.W., Sung, K.B., Lee, J.T., and Yoo, H.S. 1997. Small arterial-portal venous shunts: a cause of pseudolesions at hepatic imaging. Radiology 203: 737–742.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomoaki Ichikawa
    • 1
  • Tsutomu Araki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of YamanashiChuoJapan

Personalised recommendations