Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Standardisation of liver MDCT by tracking liver parenchyma enhancement to trigger imaging

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess parenchymal bolus-triggering in terms of liver enhancement, lesion-to-liver conspicuity and inter-image variability across serial follow-up MDCTs.

Methods

We reviewed MDCTs of 50 patients with hepatic metastases who had a baseline CT and two follow-up examinations. In 25 consecutive patients CT data acquisition was initiated by liver parenchyma triggering at a 50-HU enhancement threshold. In a matched control group, imaging was performed with an empirical delay of 65 s. CT attenuation values were assessed in vessels, liver parenchyma and metastasis. Target lesions were classified according to five enhancement patterns.

Results

Compared with the control group, liver enhancement was significantly higher with parenchyma triggering (59.8 ± 7.6 HU vs. 48.8 ± 11.2 HU, P = 0.0002). The same was true for conspicuity (liver parenchyma – lesion attenuation) of hypo-enhancing lesions (72.2 ± 15.9 HU vs. 52.7 ± 19.4 HU, P = 0.0006). Liver triggering was associated with reduced variability for liver enhancement among different patients (P = 0.035) and across serial follow-up examinations in individual patients (P < 0.0001). The number of patients presenting with uniform lesion enhancement pattern across serial examinations was significantly higher in the triggered group (20 vs. 11; P = 0.018).

Conclusion

Liver parenchyma triggering provides superior lesion conspicuity and improves standardisation of image quality across follow-up examinations with greater uniformity of enhancement patterns.

Key Points

• Liver parenchyma tracking improves liver enhancement and lesion-to-liver conspicuity in abdominal CT

• In serial CT studies this technique reduces variability of conspicuity and enhancement patterns

• Higher liver-to-lesion conspicuity is a prerequisite for reliable detection of liver lesions

• Stabilisation of enhancement permits more accurate follow-up of oncology patients

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker ME, Pelley R (1995) Hepatic metastases: basic principles and implications for radiologists. Radiology 197:329–337

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology 256:32–61

  3. Blake SP, Weisinger K, Atkins MB, Raptopoulos V (1999) Liver metastases from melanoma: detection with multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 213:92–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Francis IR, Cohan RH, McNulty NJ et al (2003) Multidetector CT of the liver and hepatic neoplasms: effect of multiphasic imaging on tumour conspicuity and vascular enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1217–1224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frederick MG, Paulson EK, Nelson RC (1997) Helical CT for detecting focal liver lesions in patients with breast carcinoma: comparison of noncontrast phase, hepatic arterial phase, and portal venous phase. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:229–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Oliver JH 3rd, Baron RL (1996) Helical biphasic contrast-enhanced CT of the liver: technique, indications, interpretation, and pitfalls. Radiology 201:1–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oliver JH 3rd, Baron RL, Federle MP, Jones BC, Sheng R (1997) Hypervascular liver metastases: do unenhanced and hepatic arterial phase CT images affect tumour detection? Radiology 205:709–715

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Raptopoulos VD, Blake SP, Weisinger K, Atkins MB, Keogan MT, Kruskal JB (2001) Multiphase contrast-enhanced helical CT of liver metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 11:2504–2509

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bae KT, Heiken JP, Brink JA (1998) Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part II. Effect of reduced cardiac output in a porcine model. Radiology 207:657–662

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heiken JP, Brink JA, McClennan BL, Sagel SS, Crowe TM, Gaines MV (1995) Dynamic incremental CT: effect of volume and concentration of contrast material and patient weight on hepatic enhancement. Radiology 195:353–357

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kormano M, Partanen K, Soimakallio S, Kivimaki T (1983) Dynamic contrast enhancement of the upper abdomen: effect of contrast medium and body weight. Invest Radiol 18:364–367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dinkel HP, Fieger M, Knupffer J, Moll R, Schindler G (1998) Optimizing liver contrast in helical liver CT: value of a real-time bolus-triggering technique. Eur Radiol 8:1608–1612

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kopka L, Funke M, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Oestmann JW, Grabbe E (1995) Parenchymal liver enhancement with bolus-triggered helical CT: preliminary clinical results. Radiology 195:282–284

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Silverman PM, Roberts S, Tefft MC et al (1995) Helical CT of the liver: clinical application of an automated computer technique, SmartPrep, for obtaining images with optimal contrast enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 165:73–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Silverman PM, Roberts SC, Ducic I et al (1996) Assessment of a technology that permits individualized scan delays on helical hepatic CT: a technique to improve efficiency in use of contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:79–84

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mehnert F, Pereira PL, Trubenbach J, Kopp AF, Claussen CD (2001) Automatic bolus tracking in monophasic spiral CT of the liver: liver-to-lesion conspicuity. Eur Radiol 11:580–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zamboni GA, Gourtsoyianni S, Sourlas E, Raptopoulos VD (2009) Value of customized scan timing determined by tracking liver enhancement in oncology patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:253–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baron RL (1994) Understanding and optimizing use of contrast material for CT of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:323–331

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Berland LL, Lawson TL, Foley WD, Melrose BL, Chintapalli KN, Taylor AJ (1982) Comparison of pre- and postcontrast CT in hepatic masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 138:853–858

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Foley WD, Berland LL, Lawson TL, Smith DF, Thorsen MK (1983) Contrast enhancement technique for dynamic hepatic computed tomographic scanning. Radiology 147:797–803

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nazarian LN, Park JH, Halpern EJ et al (1999) Size of colorectal liver metastases at abdominal CT: comparison of precontrast and postcontrast studies. Radiology 213:825–830

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Paulson EK, McDermott VG, Keogan MT, DeLong DM, Frederick MG, Nelson RC (1998) Carcinoid metastases to the liver: role of triple-phase helical CT. Radiology 206:143–150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Walkey MM (1991) Dynamic hepatic CT: how many years will it take 'til we learn? Radiology 181:17–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Young SW, Turner RJ, Castellino RA (1980) A strategy for the contrast enhancement of malignant tumours using dynamic computed tomography and intravascular pharmacokinetics. Radiology 137:137–147

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Awai K, Hiraishi K, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brink JA, Heiken JP, Forman HP, Sagel SS, Molina PL, Brown PC (1995) Hepatic spiral CT: reduction of dose of intravenous contrast material. Radiology 197:83–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H et al (2006) MDCT of the liver and hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas: optimizing scan delays for bolus-tracking techniques of hepatic arterial and portal venous phases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W25–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Itoh S, Ikeda M, Achiwa M, Satake H, Iwano S, Ishigaki T (2004) Late-arterial and portal-venous phase imaging of the liver with a multislice CT scanner in patients without circulatory disturbances: automatic bolus tracking or empirical scan delay? Eur Radiol 14:1665–1673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kopka L, Funke M, Kruger M, Schroder T, Schulz R, Grabbe E (1994) Optimizing a contrast medium bolus in spiral CT. Rofo 160:361–363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mehnert F, Pereira PL, Trubenbach J, Kopp AF, Claussen CD (2001) Biphasic spiral CT of the liver: automatic bolus tracking or time delay? Eur Radiol 11:427–431

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Claussen CD, Banzer D, Pfretzschner C, Kalender WA, Schorner W (1984) Bolus geometry and dynamics after intravenous contrast medium injection. Radiology 153:365–368

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dean PB, Violante MR, Mahoney JA (1980) Hepatic CT contrast enhancement: effect of dose, duration of infusion, and time elapsed following infusion. Invest Radiol 15:158–161

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dodd GD 3rd, Baron RL (1993) Investigation of contrast enhancement in CT of the liver: the need for improved methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160:643–645

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sheafor DH, Keogan MT, DeLong DM, Nelson RC (1998) Dynamic helical CT of the abdomen: prospective comparison of pre- and postprandial contrast enhancement. Radiology 206:359–363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Vignaux O, Legmann P, Coste J, Hoeffel C, Bonnin A (1999) Cirrhotic liver enhancement on dual-phase helical CT: comparison with noncirrhotic livers in 146 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:1193–1197

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cox IH, Foley WD, Hoffmann RG (1991) Right window for dynamic hepatic CT. Radiology 181:18–21, discussion 21–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumours. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bechtold RE, Chen MY, Stanton CA, Savage PD, Levine EA (2003) Cystic changes in hepatic and peritoneal metastases from gastrointestinal stromal tumours treated with Gleevec. Abdom Imaging 28:808–814

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA et al (2007) We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol 25:1760–1764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sica GT (2006) Bias in research studies. Radiology 238:780–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Vassilios Raptopoulos is recipient of a grant from Toshiba America Medical Systems.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    H. Brodoefel, A. Tognolini, G. A. Zamboni, S. Gourtsoyianni & V. Raptopoulos

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    H. Brodoefel & C. D. Claussen

  3. Diagnostic Cardiovascular Imaging-UCLA, 10945 LeConte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    A. Tognolini

  4. Department of Radiology, University Hospital GB Rossi, P.le LA Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy

    G. A. Zamboni

Authors
  1. H. Brodoefel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Tognolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. A. Zamboni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Gourtsoyianni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. D. Claussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. V. Raptopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Raptopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brodoefel, H., Tognolini, A., Zamboni, G.A. et al. Standardisation of liver MDCT by tracking liver parenchyma enhancement to trigger imaging. Eur Radiol 22, 812–820 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2310-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2310-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation