HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yanaga, Y. Articles by Yamashita, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yanaga, Y. Articles by Yamashita, Y. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Optimal Contrast Dose for Depiction of Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinoma at Dynamic CT Using 64-MDCT

¹ Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Kumamoto, 860-8556 Japan.
² Department of Radiological Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1 —Bar graph shows aortic enhancement during hepatic arterial phase obtained with three different contrast injection protocols. Aortic enhancement values (mean ± SD) in protocols A, B, and C were 224.5 ± 50.3, 264.4 ± 47.3, and 291.0 ± 42.7 H, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between protocols A and B (p < 0.01), A and C (p < 0.01), and B and C (p = 0.02).

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2 —Bar graph shows tumor–liver contrast (TLC) in each contrast injection protocol during hepatic arterial phase. TLC values (mean ± SD) in protocols A, B, and C were 26.5 ± 8.3, 38.4 ± 8.6, and 52.3 ± 20.3 H, respectively; difference was significant between protocols A and B (p = 0.05), A and C (p < 0.01), and B and C (p = 0.02).

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 3 —Bar graph shows hepatic enhancement in each contrast injection protocol during portal venous phase. Mean values (± SD) for hepatic enhancement were 43.2 ± 8.7, 48.7 ± 9.1, 53.9 ± 10.2 H, respectively, for protocols A, B, and C. There were statistically significant differences between protocols A and B, A and C, and B and C (p = 0.02, p < 0.01, and p = 0.02, respectively).

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4 —Visual evaluation of tumor conspicuity during hepatic arterial phase for each of three different contrast injection protocols. There was a significant difference between protocols A and B (p = 0.02) and A and C (p < 0.01) but not between protocols B and C (p = 0.22).

View larger version (104K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 5A —CT of one patient from each protocol. Transverse CT image at level of left portal vein in 68-year-old man with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) scanned according to protocol A. Tumor–liver contrast (TLC) in this patient was 27.0 H (mean TLC for protocol A, 26.5 H).

View larger version (128K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 5B —CT of one patient from each protocol. Transverse CT image at level of porta hepatis in 82-year-old man with HCC scanned according to protocol B. TLC in this patient was 44.0 H (mean TLC for protocol B, 38.4 H).

View larger version (92K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 5C —CT of one patient from each protocol. Transverse CT image at level of left portal vein in 73-year-old man with HCC scanned according to protocol C. TLC in this patient was 51.1 H (mean TLC for protocol C, 52.3 H).

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati