Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-11
Assessment of Cirrhotic Liver Enhancement with Multiphasic Computed Tomography Using a Faster Injection Rate,Late Arterial Phase,and Weight-Based Contrast Dosing
This study aimed to update our liver computed tomography (CT) protocol according to published guidelines, and to quantitatively evaluate the effect of these modifications.
Methods
The modified liver CT protocol employed a faster injection rate (5 vs 3 mL/s), later arterial phase (20-second vs 10-second postbolus trigger), and weight-based dosing of iodinated contrast (1.7 mL/kg vs 100 mL fixed dose). Liver and vascular attenuation values were measured on CTs of patients with cirrhosis from January to September 2015 (old protocol, n = 49) and from October to December 2015 (modified protocol, n = 31). CTs were considered adequate if liver enhancement exceeded 50 Hounsfield units (HU) in portal venous phase, or when the unenhanced phase was unavailable, if a minimum iodine concentration of 500 mg I/kg was achieved. Attenuations and iodine concentrations were compared using the t test and the number of suboptimal studies was compared with Fisher's exact test.
Results
CTs acquired with the modified protocol demonstrated higher aortic (P = .001) and portal vein (P < .0001) attenuations in the arterial phase as well as greater hepatic attenuation on all postcontrast phases (P = .0006, .002, and .003 for arterial, venous, and equilibrium phases, respectively). Hepatic enhancement in the portal venous phase (61 ± 15 HU vs 51 ± 16 HU; P = .0282) and iodine concentrations (595 ± 88 mg I/kg vs 456 ± 112 mg I/kg; P < .0001) were improved, and the number of suboptimal studies was reduced from 57% to 23% (P = .01).
Conclusions
A liver CT protocol with later arterial phase, faster injection rate, and weight-based dosing of intravenous contrast significantly improves liver enhancement and iodine concentrations in patients with cirrhosis, resulting in significantly fewer suboptimal studies.
MittalS.El-SeragH.B.Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: consider the populationJ Clin Gastroenterol47suppl2013S2–S6.
2.
JemalA.BrayF.CenterM.M.FerlayJ.WardE.FormanD.Global cancer statisticsCA Cancer J Clin2011; 61:69–90.
3.
BruixJ.ShermanM.American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an updateHepatology2011; 53:1020–1022.
4.
McEvoyS.H.McCarthyC.J.LavelleL.P.Hepatocellular carcinoma: illustrated guide to systematic radiologic diagnosis and staging according to guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver DiseasesRadiographics2013; 33:1653–1668.
5.
WaldC.RussoM.W.HeimbachJ.K.HussainH.K.PomfretE.A.BruixJ.New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinomaRadiology2013; 266:376–382.
6.
BaeK.T.Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approachesRadiology2010; 256:32–61.
7.
KoiwaharaG.TsudaT.MatsudaM.Different enhancement of the hepatic parenchyma in dynamic CT for patients with normal liver and chronic liver diseases and with the dose of contrast medium based on body surface areaJpn J Radiol2015; 33:194–200.
8.
Van BeersB.E.LeconteI.MaterneR.SmithA.M.JamartJ.HorsmansY.Hepatic perfusion parameters in chronic liver disease: dynamic CT measurements correlated with disease severityAJR Am J Roentgenol2001; 176:667–673.
9.
ZissenM.H.WangZ.J.YeeJ.AslamR.MontoA.YehB.M.Contrast-enhanced CT quantification of the hepatic fractional extracellular space: correlation with diffuse liver disease severityAJR Am J Roentgenol2013; 201:1204–1210.
FleischmannD.KamayaA.Optimal vascular and parenchymal contrast enhancement: the current state of the artRadiol Clin North Am2009; 47:13–26.
12.
FoleyW.D.MalliseeT.A.HohenwalterM.D.WilsonC.R.QuirozF.A.TaylorA.J.Multiphase hepatic CT with a multirow detector CT scannerAJR Am J Roentgenol2000; 175:679–685.
13.
FujigaiT.KumanoS.OkadaM.Optimal dose of contrast medium for depiction of hypervascular HCC on dynamic MDCTEur J Radiol2012; 81:2978–2983.
14.
HeikenJ.P.BrinkJ.A.McClennanB.L.SagelS.S.CroweT.M.GainesM.V.Dynamic incremental CT: effect of volume and concentration of contrast material and patient weight on hepatic enhancementRadiology1995; 195:353–357.
15.
IchikawaT.ErturkS.M.ArakiT.Multiphasic contrast-enhanced multidetector-row CT of liver: contrast-enhancement theory and practical scan protocol with a combination of fixed injection duration and patients' body-weight-tailored dose of contrast materialEur J Radiol2006; 58:165–176.
16.
KormanoM.PartanenK.SoimakallioS.KivimakiT.Dynamic contrast enhancement of the upper abdomen: effect of contrast medium and body weightInvest Radiol1983; 18:364–367.
17.
YamashitaY.KomoharaY.TakahashiM.Abdominal helical CT: evaluation of optimal doses of intravenous contrast material–a prospective randomized studyRadiology2000; 216:718–723.
18.
AwaiK.KanematsuM.KimT.The optimal body size index with which to determine iodine dose for hepatic dynamic CT: a prospective multicenter studyRadiology2016; 278:773–781.
19.
HoL.M.NelsonR.C.DelongD.M.Determining contrast medium dose and rate on basis of lean body weight: does this strategy improve patient-to-patient uniformity of hepatic enhancement during multi-detector row CT?Radiology2007; 243:431–437.
20.
KidohM.NakauraT.OdaS.Contrast enhancement during hepatic computed tomography: effect of total body weight, height, body mass index, blood volume, lean body weight, and body surface areaJ Comput Assist Tomogr2013; 37:159–164.
21.
KondoH.KanematsuM.GoshimaS.Abdominal multidetector CT in patients with varying body fat percentages: estimation of optimal contrast material doseRadiology2008; 249:872–877.
22.
KondoH.KanematsuM.GoshimaS.Body size indices to determine iodine mass with contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography of the upper abdomen: does body surface area outperform total body weight or lean body weight?Eur Radiol2013; 23:1855–1861.
23.
AwaiK.HiraishiK.HoriS.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 weightRadiology2004; 230:142–150.
24.
AwaiK.HoriS.Effect of contrast injection protocol with dose tailored to patient weight and fixed injection duration on aortic and hepatic enhancement at multidetector-row helical CTEur Radiol2003; 13:2155–2160.
25.
KondoH.KanematsuM.GoshimaS.Body size indexes for optimizing iodine dose for aortic and hepatic enhancement at multidetector CT: comparison of total body weight, lean body weight, and blood volumeRadiology2010; 254:163–169.
26.
SultanaS.AwaiK.NakayamaY.Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas: bolus tracking with a 40-detector CT scanner to time arterial phase imagingRadiology2007; 243:140–147.
27.
IchikawaT.OkadaM.KondoH.Recommended iodine dose for multiphasic contrast-enhanced mutidetector-row computed tomography imaging of liver for assessing hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: multicenter prospective study in 77 general hospitals in JapanAcad Radiol2013; 20:1130–1136.
28.
YanagaY.AwaiK.NakauraT.Optimal contrast dose for depiction of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma at dynamic CT using 64-MDCTAJR Am J Roentgenol2008; 190:1003–1009.
29.
RengoM.BelliniD.De CeccoC.N.The optimal contrast media policy in CT of the liver. Part I: Technical notesActa Radiol2011; 52:467–472.
30.
NodaY.KanematsuM.GoshimaS.Reducing iodine load in hepatic CT for patients with chronic liver disease with a combination of low-tube-voltage and adaptive statistical iterative reconstructionEur J Radiol2015; 84:11–18.
YamaguchiI.KidoyaE.SuzukiM.KimuraH.Optimizing scan timing of hepatic arterial phase by physiologic pharmacokinetic analysis in bolus-tracking technique by multi-detector row computed tomographyRadiol Phys Technol2011; 4:43–52.
33.
DavenportM.S.KhalatbariS.CohanR.H.DillmanJ.R.MylesJ.D.EllisJ.H.Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rateRadiology2013; 268:719–728.
34.
DavenportM.S.KhalatbariS.DillmanJ.R.CohanR.H.CaoiliE.M.EllisJ.H.Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast materialRadiology2013; 267:94–105.
35.
McDonaldJ.S.McDonaldR.J.CarterR.E.KatzbergR.W.KallmesD.F.WilliamsonE.E.Risk of intravenous contrast material-mediated acute kidney injury: a propensity score-matched study stratified by baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rateRadiology2014; 271:65–73.
36.
McDonaldJ.S.McDonaldR.J.CominJ.Frequency of acute kidney injury following intravenous contrast medium administration: a systematic review and meta-analysisRadiology2013; 267:119–128.
37.
McDonaldR.J.McDonaldJ.S.BidaJ.P.Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon?Radiology2013; 267:106–118.
SchinderaS.T.NelsonR.C.MukundanS.Jr.Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection–phantom studyRadiology2008; 246:125–132.
41.
MarinD.NelsonR.C.SameiE.Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multidetector CT during late hepatic arterial phase for detection–initial clinical experienceRadiology2009; 251:771–779.
42.
NakauraT.AwaiK.MaruyamaN.Abdominal dynamic CT in patients with renal dysfunction: contrast agent dose reduction with low tube voltage and high tube current-time product settings at 256-detector row CTRadiology2011; 261:467–476.
43.
YanagaY.AwaiK.NakauraT.Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients weighing 70 kg or less: initial trial of compact-bolus dynamic CT with low-dose contrast material at 80 kVpAJR Am J Roentgenol2011; 196:1324–1331.
44.
TanakaJ.KozawaE.InoueK.OkamotoY.ToyaM.SatoY.Should the dose of contrast medium be determined solely on the basis of body weight regardless of the patient's sex?Jpn J Radiol2011; 29:330–334.
45.
SvenssonA.NouhadJ.CederlundK.Hepatic contrast medium enhancement at computed tomography and its correlation with various body size measuresActa Radiol2012; 53:601–606.
