Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Detection of liver metastases under 2 cm: comparison of different acquisition protocols in four row multidetector-CT (MDCT)

  • Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compared different acquisition protocols performance to detect small liver metastases (<2 cm). Thirty consecutive patients with histologically proven hepatic metastases were explored by MDCT at the liver equilibrium phase by four successive acquisitions. We compared the following protocols (1–4): 5/30/1.5 (section thickness/table speed/pitch); 5/15/0.75; 5/11.25/0.75; and 2.5/15/1.5 with the same X-ray dose. The gold standard was based on patient radiological follow-up. Evolutive lesions were considered as true positive (TP). The described lesions, not found on the follow-up exams despite tumoral progression, were considered as false positive (FP). Stable lesions could not be considered as metastasis and were eliminated. One hundred and seventy-six lesions were detected: 61 TP and 91 FP. Twenty-four lesions were eliminated. The mean kappa values for protocols 1, 2, 3 and 4 were, respectively, 0.43, 0.68, 0.73 and 0.51 (0.61–0.80: substantial agreement) and the mean areas under the ROC curve were, respectively, 0.76, 0.87, 0.86 and 0.80. The results of protocols 2 and 3 were significantly superior to those of protocols 1 and 4. MDCT protocols using thin sections or an increased table speed are less efficient in detecting small metastases.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roos JE, Desbiolles LM, Willmann JK, Weishaupt D, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR (2002) Multidetector-row helical CT: analysis of time management and workflow. Eur Radiol 12:680–685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sugarbaker PH (1990) Surgical decision making for large bowel cancer metastatic to the liver. Radiology 174:621–626

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nakamura S, Suzuki S, Baba S (1997) Resection of liver metastases of colorectal carcinoma. World J Surg 21:741–747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Prokop M (2003) Multislice CT: technical principles and future trends. Eur Radiol Suppl 5:M3–M13

    Google Scholar 

  5. Itoh S, Ikeda M, Achiwa M, Ota T, Satake H, Ishigaki T (2003) Multiphase contrast-enhanced CT of the liver with a multislice CT scanner. Eur Radiol 13:1085–1094

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Valls C, Andia E, Sanchez A et al. (2001) Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: preoperative detection and assessment of resectability with helical CT. Radiology 218:55–60

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmidt J, Strotzer M, Fraunhofer S, Boedeker H, Zirngibl H (2000) Intraoperative ultrasonography versus helical computed tomography and computed tomography with arterioportography in diagnosing colorectal liver metastases: lesion-by-lesion analysis. World J Surg 24:43–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kuszyk BS, Bluemke DA, Urban BA et al. (1996) Portal-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT for the detection of malignant hepatic tumors: sensitivity based on comparison with intraoperative and pathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol 166:91–95

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fleischmann D (2003) Use of high-concentration contrast media in multiple-detector-row CT: principles and rationale. Eur Radiol Suppl 5:M14–M20

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schoellnast H, Tillich M (2004) Improvement of parenchymal and vascular enhancement using saline flush and power injection for multiple-detector-row abdominal CT. Eur Radiol 14:659–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Verdun FR, Denys A, Valley JF, Schnyder P, Meuli RA (2002) Detection of low-contrast objects: experimental comparison of single- and multi-detector row CT with a phantom. Radiology 223:426–431

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al. (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jones E, Chezmar J, Nelson R, Bernardino M (1992) The frequency and significance of small (less than or equal to 15 mm) hepatic lesions detected by CT. Am J Roentgenol 158:535–539

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwartz LH, Gandras EJ, Colangelo SM, Ercolani MC, Panice DM (1999) Prevalence and importance of small hepatic lesions found at CT in patients with cancer. Radiology 210:71–74

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Valette PJ, Pilleul F, Crombe-Ternamian A (2003) MDCT of benign liver tumors and metastases. Eur Radiol Suppl 5:M31–M41

    Google Scholar 

  16. Marchiano A (2003) MDCT of primary liver malignancies. Eur Radiol Suppl 5:M26–M30

    Google Scholar 

  17. Commission of the European Communities (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR 16262 EN Luxembourg, Belgium: European Communities

  18. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Saini S (2003) Multislice CT: update on radiation and screening. Eur Radiol 13:M129–M133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Verdun FR, Lepori D, Monnin P, Valley JF, Schnyder P, Gudinchet F (2004) Management of patient dose and image noise in routine pediatric CT abdominal examinations. Eur Radiol 14 835–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hormann M, Philipp MO, Eberl H et al. (2004) The effect of varying low-dose protocols on perceived image quality in multidetector CT in a rabbit model of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 14:1465–1471

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greess H, Lutze J, Nomayr A et al. (2004) Dose reduction in subsecond multislice spiral CT examination of children by online tube current modulation. Eur Radiol 14:995–999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH (2000) Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 215:55–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fox SH, Toth T (2002) Dose reduction on GE CT scanners. Pediatr Radiol 32:718–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weg N, Scheer MR, Gabor MP (1998) Liver lesions: improved detection with dual-detector-array CT and routine 2.5-mm thin collimation. Radiology 209:417–426

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McCollough CH, Zink FE (1999) Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 26:2223–2230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haider MA, Amitai MM, Rappaport DC (2002) Multi-detector row helical CT in preoperative assessment of small (< or =1.5 cm) liver metastases: is thinner collimation better? Radiology 225:137–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Polacin A, Kalender WA, Marchal G (1992) Evaluation of section sensitivity profiles and image noise in spiral CT. Radiology 185:29–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilting JE, Timmer J (1999) Artefacts in spiral-CT images and their relation to pitch and subject morphology. Eur Radiol 9:316–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fleischmann D, Rubin GD, Paik DS et al. (2000) Stair-step artifacts with single versus multiple detector-row helical CT. Radiology 216:185–196

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is dedicated to the memory of Yasmine Abdelmoumene MD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Centre (CHUV), 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Amina Abdelmoumene, Patrick Chevallier, Marc Chalaron, Frédéric Schneider, Reto Meuli, Pierre Schnyder & Alban Denys

  2. University Institute for Applied Radiophysics, Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Francis R. Verdun

  3. Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Centre (CHUV), 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Phillipe Frascarolo

Authors
  1. Amina Abdelmoumene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Chevallier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Chalaron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frédéric Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francis R. Verdun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Phillipe Frascarolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Reto Meuli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Pierre Schnyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alban Denys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amina Abdelmoumene.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abdelmoumene, A., Chevallier, P., Chalaron, M. et al. Detection of liver metastases under 2 cm: comparison of different acquisition protocols in four row multidetector-CT (MDCT). Eur Radiol 15, 1881–1887 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2741-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2741-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation