Mileto Achille, Husarik Daniela B, Bellini Davide, Marin Daniele, Reiner Caecilia S, Nelson Rendon C
1 Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC 27710.
2 Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Aug;207(2):310-20. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.15808. Epub 2016 Jun 2.
The purpose of this study was to prospectively investigate the clinical feasibility of adopting splenic enhancement for timing and triggering the acquisition of late hepatic arterial phase images during multiphasic liver MDCT for assessment of hypervascular tumors.
Forty-eight patients (33 men, 15 women; median age, 59 years; chronic liver disease, 23 patients; portal venous hypertension, 17 patients) with a total of 81 hypervascular liver tumors underwent liver MDCT by random assignment to one of two scanning protocols. Scanning delay for the late hepatic arterial phase was determined by assessment of time-to-peak splenic enhancement (splenic-triggering protocol) or aortic enhancement (aortic-triggering protocol). Acquisition timing, vascular attenuation, liver attenuation and homogeneity, signal-to-noise ratio, tumor-to-liver contrast, and tumor-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio were compared. Two blinded independent observers used Likert scales to score timing adequacy (3-point scale), diagnostic confidence (5-point scale), and per lesion conspicuity (4-point scale) for hypervascular tumor detection.
The splenic- and aortic-triggering protocols had significant differences in mean late hepatic arterial phase imaging timing (splenic, 36 ± 6 seconds; aortic, 32 ± 3 seconds; p = 0.010). Images obtained with the splenic-triggering protocol had significantly better observer-based judgment of adequacy (splenic, 2.04; aortic, 1.58; p = 0.002). Mean attenuation and signal-to-noise ratios from liver and portal vein were significantly higher with the splenic- than with the aortic-triggering protocol (p < 0.0001). The splenic-triggering protocol was associated with significant improvement in homogeneity of liver attenuation (p < 0.0001). Although the splenic-triggering protocol was associated with significantly higher lesion conspicuity than was the aortic-triggering protocol (p = 0.022), there was no significant difference in tumor detection rate.
Our results provide a clinical foundation for and proof of principle that the adoption of splenic enhancement renders an optimal temporal window for late hepatic arterial phase imaging during MDCT of the liver for assessment of hypervascular tumors.
本研究旨在前瞻性地探讨在多期肝脏MDCT检查中采用脾脏强化来确定时间并触发采集肝动脉晚期图像以评估富血供肿瘤的临床可行性。
48例患者(男性33例,女性15例;中位年龄59岁;慢性肝病患者23例,门静脉高压患者17例),共81个富血供肝脏肿瘤,通过随机分配接受两种扫描方案之一进行肝脏MDCT检查。肝动脉晚期的扫描延迟通过评估脾脏强化峰值时间(脾脏触发方案)或主动脉强化峰值时间(主动脉触发方案)来确定。比较采集时间、血管衰减、肝脏衰减及均匀性、信噪比、肿瘤与肝脏的对比度以及肿瘤与肝脏的对比噪声比。两名独立的盲法观察者使用李克特量表对富血供肿瘤检测的时间适宜性(3分制)、诊断信心(5分制)和每个病灶的显见度(4分制)进行评分。
脾脏触发方案和主动脉触发方案在肝动脉晚期平均成像时间上有显著差异(脾脏触发方案为36±6秒,主动脉触发方案为32±3秒;p = 0.010)。采用脾脏触发方案获得的图像在基于观察者的适宜性判断方面明显更好(脾脏触发方案为2.04,主动脉触发方案为1.58;p = 0.002)。与主动脉触发方案相比,脾脏触发方案的肝脏和门静脉的平均衰减及信噪比显著更高(p < 0.0001)。脾脏触发方案与肝脏衰减均匀性的显著改善相关(p < 0.0001)。虽然脾脏触发方案与主动脉触发方案相比,病灶显见度显著更高(p = 0.022),但肿瘤检出率无显著差异。
我们的结果为在肝脏MDCT检查中采用脾脏强化为评估富血供肿瘤提供肝动脉晚期成像的最佳时间窗提供了临床依据和原理证明。