OJRad  Vol.4 No.1 , March 2014
Effect of Slice Thickness Reconstruction on Quantitative Vascular Parameters in Perfusion CT
ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine how the slice thickness reconstruction influences quantitative perfusion CT parameters. Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients with cancer (15 non-small-cell lung cancer, 2 rectal cancer and 1 renal cancer) were examined prospectively with multidetector row CT. A 90-second perfusion study was performed after intravenous bolus injection of contrast material. Blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time and permeability-surface area product were determined at three different slice thickness reconstruction (1.25, 2.5 and 5 mms) both in tumors and in paraspinal muscle. Mean values, limits of agreement between measurements and within-subject coefficient of correlation were obtained for these thicknesses. Results: Mean ± standard deviation BF, BV, MTT and PS in lesions were 118.7 ± 117.9 mL/min/100g tissue, 8.2 ± 8.2 mL/100g tissue, 7.5 ± 5.4 seconds and 10.3 ± 7.2 mL/min/100g tissue respectively at1.25 mmslice thickness; 116.1 ± 115.7 mL/min/100g tissue, 7.8 ± 8.7 mL/100g tissue, 7 ± 4.5 seconds and 10.4 ± 7.5 mL/min/100g tissue at 2.5 mms; and 119.6 ± 115.7 mL/min/100g tissue, 7.8 ± 8.8 mL/100g tissue, 5.4 ± 3.4 seconds and 9.6 ± 7.5 mL/min/100g tissue at 5 mms. Differences between means for different slice thickness where relatively small in all parameters (<15%) except in MTT where difference was up to 37%. 95% limits of agreement were worse when comparing more different slice thicknesses (e.g. 1.25 vs 5 mms) than when comparing more close slice thicknesses (1.25 vs 2.5 mms or 2.5 vs 5 mms). Conclusions: There is a significant variability in perfusion parameter measurements at different slice thickness reconstruction, particularly in MTT. The more close together the slice thicknesses were, the smaller was the variability.


Cite this paper
Martínez-de-Alegría, A. , García-Figueiras, R. , Baleato-González, S. , Rodriguez-Alvarez, M. , Martínez-Souto, I. and Villalba-Martín, C. (2014) Effect of Slice Thickness Reconstruction on Quantitative Vascular Parameters in Perfusion CT. Open Journal of Radiology, 4, 53-59. doi: 10.4236/ojrad.2014.41007.
References
[1]   Kambadakone, A.R. and Sahani, D.V. (2009) Body Perfusion CT: Technique, Clinical Applications, and Advances. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 47, 161-178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2008.11.003

[2]   Axel, L. (1980) Cerebral Blood Flow Determination by Rapid-Sequence Computed Tomography: Theoretical Analysis. Radiology, 137, 679-686.

[3]   García-Figueiras, R., Goh, V.J., Padhani, A.R., Baleato-Gonzalez, S., Garrido, M., León, L. and Gómez-Caamano, A. (2013) CT Perfusion in Oncologic Imaging: A Useful Tool? AJR, 1, 8-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8476

[4]   Ng, Q.S. and Goh, V. (2010) Angiogenesis in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Imaging with Perfusion Computed Tomography. Journal of Thoracic Imaging, 25, 142-150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0b013e3181d29ccf

[5]   Petralia, G., Bonello, L., Viotti, S., Preda, L., d’Andrea G. and Bellomi, M. (2010) CT Perfusion in Oncology: How to Do It. Cancer Imaging, 10, 8-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2010.0001

[6]   Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1986) Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. Lancet, 1, 307-310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8

[7]   Quan, H. and Shih, W.J. (1996) Assessing Reproducibility by the Within-Subject Coefficient of Variation with Random Effects Models. Biometrics, 52, 1195-1203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2532835

[8]   R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/

[9]   Carstensen, B., Gurrin, L. and Ekstrom, C. (2012) MethComp: Functions for Analysis of Method Comparison Studies.
http://bendixcarstensen.com/MethComp/

[10]   Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. and the R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-109.

[11]   Goh, V., Dattani, M., Farwell, J., Shekhdar, J., Tam, E., Patel, S., Juttla, J., Simcock, I., Stirling, J., Mandeville, H., Aird, E. and Hoskin, P. (2011) Radiation Dose from Volumetric Helical Perfusion CT of the Thorax, Abdomen or Pelvis. European Radiology, 21, 974-981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1997-y

[12]   Goh, V., Halligan, S., Hugill, J.-A. and Bartram, C.I. (2006) Quantitative Assessment of Tissue Perfusion Using MDCT Comparison of Colorectal Cancer and Skeletal Muscle Measurement Reproducibility. AJR, 187, pp.164-169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0050

[13]   Ng, C.S., Chandler, A.G., Wei, W., Herron, D.H., Anderson, E.F., Kurzrock, R. and Charnsangavej, C. (2011) Reproducibility of CT Perfusion Parameters in Liver Tumors and Normal Liver. Radiology, 260, 762-770.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110331

[14]   Goh, V., Halligan, S. and Bartram, C.I. (2007) Quantitative Tumor Perfusion Assessment with Multidetector CT: Are Measurements from Two Commercial Software Packages Interchangeable? Radiology, 242, 777-782.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2423060279

 
 
Top