Retrospective study demonstrates that 3D motion correction significantly enhances C-arm CT image quality during transarterial chemoembolization, suggesting reduced need for repeat scans.
Background To evaluate effectivity of a 3D-motion correction algorithm in C-Arm CTs (CACT) with limited image quality (IQ) during transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods From 1/2015–5/2021, 644 CACTs were performed in patients during TACE. Of these, 27 CACTs in 26 patients (18 m, 8f; 69.7 years ± 10.7 SD) of limited IQ were included. Post-processing of the original raw-data sets (CACT Org ) included application of a 3D-motion correction algorithm and bone segmentation (CACT MC_no_bone ). Four radiologists (R1-4) compared the images by choosing their preferred dataset and recommending repeat acquisition in case of severe IQ-impairment. R1,2 performed additional grading of intrahepatic vessel visualization, presence/extent of movement artifacts, and overall IQ. Results R1,2 demonstrated excellent interobserver agreement for overall IQ (ICC 0.79, p < 0.01) and the five-point vessel visualization scale before and after post-processing of the datasets (ICC 0.78, p < 0.01). Post-processing caused significant improvement, with overall IQ improving from 2.63 (CACT Org ) to 1.39 (CACT MC_no_bone ; p < 0.01) and a decrease in the mean distance of identifiable, subcapsular vessels to the liver capsule by 4 mm ( p < 0.01). This proved especially true for datasets with low parenchymal and high hepatic artery contrast. A good interobserver agreement (ICC = 0.73) was recorded concerning the presence of motion artifacts, with significantly less discernible motion after post-processing (CACT Org :1.31 ± 1.67, CACT MC_no_bone :1.00 ± 1.34, p < 0.01). Of the 27 datasets, ≥ 23 CACT MC_no_bone were preferred, with identical datasets chosen by the readers to show benefit from the algorithm. Conclusion Application of a 3D-motion correction algorithm significantly improved IQ in diagnostically limited CACTs during TACE, with the potential to decrease repeat acquisitions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Becker et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: