Minerva gastroenterologica e dietologica · 2015
Multidetector computed tomography angiography in the management of transarterial embolization of primary and secondary liver malignancy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Onashvili Nikoloz, Mizandari Malkhaz, Azrumelashvili Tamta, Ingorokva Ana, Ubiria Giorgi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endovascular management is the mainstay of therapy for most patients with primary and secondary liver tumors. Radiologist should understand the anatomy of the hepatic vasculature and tumor feeding vessels to ensure successful conduction of the embolization procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of multidetector computed tomographic angiography (MDCTA) for the evaluation of hepatic arterial anatomy and tumor feeding vessels prior to embolization procedure.
METHODS: This study included 42 patients. They were 30 with hepatocellular carcinoma, 6 with colorectal cancer metastases, 3 with intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma, 2 with giant focal nodular hyperplasia and 1 with gallbladder tumor. The findings of MDCTA were compared with the DSA findings, which served as the standard of reference. Sensitivity and specificity of the MDCTA were calculated.
RESULTS: MDCTA showed 100% coincidence with the DSA and 100% accuracy in the evaluation of gross hepatic arterial anatomy and its variations. 61 out of the 64 feeders were correctly identified with the MDCTA. False positives and false negatives were 3 each. Accordingly sensitivity and specificity were 95.31%, 97.95% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MDCT angiography permits accurate assessment of the hepatic vascular anatomy. Although some pathways of tumor irrigation may not be well visible on the computed tomography. These require detailed reevaluation of suspected tumor feeders during embolization procedure.
METHODS: This study included 42 patients. They were 30 with hepatocellular carcinoma, 6 with colorectal cancer metastases, 3 with intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma, 2 with giant focal nodular hyperplasia and 1 with gallbladder tumor. The findings of MDCTA were compared with the DSA findings, which served as the standard of reference. Sensitivity and specificity of the MDCTA were calculated.
RESULTS: MDCTA showed 100% coincidence with the DSA and 100% accuracy in the evaluation of gross hepatic arterial anatomy and its variations. 61 out of the 64 feeders were correctly identified with the MDCTA. False positives and false negatives were 3 each. Accordingly sensitivity and specificity were 95.31%, 97.95% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MDCT angiography permits accurate assessment of the hepatic vascular anatomy. Although some pathways of tumor irrigation may not be well visible on the computed tomography. These require detailed reevaluation of suspected tumor feeders during embolization procedure.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AngiographyBile Duct NeoplasmsCarcinoma, HepatocellularCholangiocarcinomaColorectal NeoplasmsEmbolization, TherapeuticFemaleFocal Nodular HyperplasiaGallbladder NeoplasmsHepatic ArteryHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMultidetector Computed TomographyPredictive Value of TestsRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadionuclide ImagingSensitivity and SpecificityTreatment Outcome