Characterization of Liver Metastases During Catheter-Directed Liver Interventions: A Comparison between Dual Phase Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Conventional Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance of intra-arterial dual phase cone-beam computed tomography (DP-CBCT) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) when characterizing tumor burden in patients with metastatic liver cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 29 patients with colorectal (n =10), breast (n = 9) and neuroendocrine (n = 10) liver metastases, referred for catheter-directed treatment. Tumor type, number, maximum size, and appearance were assessed. Paired-sample t-tests compared image quality, tumor numbers, and diameters between imaging modalities. Results: Image quality was not different between DP-CBCT and CE-CT (p = 0.9). In 18 patients (62%) DP-CBCT and CE-CT showed diffuse, uncountable metastases in the liver. Of the remaining 11 patients, DP-CBCT identified two patients with diffuse tumors that appeared as a sum of 17 distinct metastases on CE-CT. In the remaining nine patients a total of 102 metastases were found using both DP-CBCT and CE-CT. Tumor detection accuracy was 98% in DP-CBCT and 67% in CE-CT (p = 0.025). Metastases were larger in diameter on DP-CBCT: colorectal: 57 +/– 9.5 mm versus 43 +/– 8.3 mm (p = 0.02); breast: 57 +/– 10 mm versus 43 +/– 8.5 mm (p = 0.03) and neuroendocrine: 56 +/– 6.3 mm versus 51 +/– 5.8 mm (p = 0.01). Rim enhancement appeared in 100% of patients with colorectal and 89% of patients with breast metastases on DP-CBCT, but was variable on CE-CT. Neuroendocrine tumors had variable rim enhancement within the same patient and across imaging modalities. Conclusions: DP-CBCT of the liver may demonstrate larger metastatic tumor burden and lesion size with a variable contrast enhancement compared to CE-CT.

Analysis of failed therapy evaluations in radioembolization of primary and secondary liver cancers

“…In this context, other strategies for planning and evaluation before TARE, such as 166 Ho (holmium)-based microspheres, may provide novel insights (Smits et al 2019 ). Further, initial reports have shown that including cone-beam CT (CBCT) to TARE evaluation and treatment work flow may provide additional information about hepatic tumor burden, tumor and tissue perfusion and extrahepatic enhancement compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or 99m Tc-MAA based SPECT/CT imaging (Gormez et al 2020 ; Louie et al 2009 ; Maleux et al 2020 ). However, superiority of CBCT regarding patient safety or treatment evaluation and response has not yet been shown in larger patient cohorts.…”