These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Computed analysis of three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography angiography for determination of tumor-feeding vessels during chemoembolization of liver tumor: a pilot study.
    Author: Deschamps F, Solomon SB, Thornton RH, Rao P, Hakime A, Kuoch V, de Baere T.
    Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2010 Dec; 33(6):1235-42. PubMed ID: 20390271.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to evaluate computed analysis of three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the liver for determination of subsegmental tumor-feeding vessels (FVs). Eighteen consecutive patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) from January to October 2008 for 25 liver tumors (15 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs] and 10 neuroendocrine metastases). Anteroposterior projection angiogram (two-dimensional [2D]) and 3D cone-beam CTA images were acquired by injection of the common hepatic artery. Retrospectively, FVs were independently identified by three radiology technologists using a software package (S) that automatically determines FVs by analysis of 3D images. Subsequently, three interventional radiologists (IRs) independently identified FVs by reviewing the 2D images followed by examination of the 3D images. Finally, the "ground truth" for the number and location of FVs was obtained by consensus among the IRs, who were allowed to use any imaging-including 2D, 3D, and all oblique or selective angiograms-for such determination. Sensitivities, durations, and degrees of agreement for review of 2D, 3D, and S results were evaluated. Sensitivity of 3D (73%) was higher than 2D (64%) images for identification of FVs (P = 0.036). The sensitivity of S (93%) was higher than 2D (P = 0.02) and 3D (P = 0.005) imaging. The duration for review of 3D imaging was longer than that for 2D imaging (187 vs. 94 s, P = 0.0001) or for S (135 s, P = 0.0001). The degree of agreement between the IRs using 2D and 3D imaging were 54% and 62%, respectively, whereas it was 82% between the three radiology technologists using S. These preliminary data show that computed determination of FVs is both accurate and sensitive.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]