Value of Latest-generation Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Post Lipiodol-embolization Imaging in Hepatic Transarterial Chemoembolization in Comparison with Multi-detector Computed Tomography

Abstract

To evaluate image quality, radiation dose (phantom study) and tumor volumetry of intraprocedural cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to postprocedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients undergoing hepatic conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE). One hundred fourteen patients (64/50 female/male; mean age, 57 ± 14 years) who had undergone cTACE including intraprocedural-CBCT and postprocedural-MDCT were retrospectively enrolled. Subjective image quality (IQ) and suitability for assessing Lipiodol distribution were compared using 4-point Likert scales; additionally, lesion to liver contrast (LLC) and contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) were compared. Tumor volumes were measured semi-automatically and compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Effective doses were measured using an anthropomorphic phantom. The suitability of CBCT for assessing Lipiodol distribution during cTACE was comparable to MDCT (mean score, 3.2 ± 0.6) and CBCT (3.4 ± 1.0, p=0.29). Subjective overall IQ was rated with a mean score of 3.2 ± 0.7 (κ=0.66) in CBCT and 3.1 ± 0.4 (κ=0.57, p=0.15) in MDCT. Evaluation of LLC showed significant differences between CBCT and MDCT (mean scores 3.6 ± 1.2 and 2.6 ± 1.5, respectively). CNR analysis demonstrated comparable mean values for CBCT and MDCT (3.5 ± 1.3vs. 3.4 ± 1.8,p=0.31). No significant differences were found regarding tumor volumetry (mean volumes: CBCT, 27.0 ± 17.4 mm3; MDCT: 26.8 ± 16.0 mm3; p = 0.66) in comparison to T2-weighted MRI (25.9 ± 17.6 mm3). Effective doses were 3.2 ± 0.6 mSv (CBCT) and 2.5 ± 0.3 mSv (MDCT) (p < 0.001). No cTACE-related complications (bleeding, non-target embolization) were missed on intraprocedural CBCT in comparison to postprocedural MDCT. Latest-generation intraprocedural CBCT provides suitable assessment of Lipiodol distribution and similar image quality compared to MDCT while allowing for robust volumetric tumor measurements and immediate complication control by visualizing non-target embolization and hematoma. Therefore, it may improve patient safety and outcome as well as clinical workflow compared to postprocedural MDCT in hepatic cTACE in certain cases.