Differentiation of hepatocellular adenoma by subtype and hepatocellular carcinoma in non-cirrhotic liver by fractal analysis of perfusion MRI

Background To investigate whether fractal analysis of perfusion differentiates hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) subtypes and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in non-cirrhotic liver by quantifying perfusion chaos using four-dimensional dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (4D-DCE-MRI). Results A retrospective population of 63 patients (47 female) with histopathologically characterized HCA and HCC in non-cirrhotic livers was investigated. Our population consisted of 13 hepatocyte nuclear factor (HNF)-1 alpha-inactivated (H-HCAs), 7 beta-catenin-exon-3-mutated (b(ex3)-HCAs), 27 inflammatory HCAs (I-HCAs), and 16 HCCs. Four-dimensional fractal analysis was applied to arterial, portal venous, and delayed phases of 4D-DCE-MRI and was performed in lesions as well as remote liver tissue. Diagnostic accuracy of fractal analysis was compared to qualitative MRI features alone and their combination using multi-class diagnostic accuracy testing including kappa-statistics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Fractal analysis allowed quantification of perfusion chaos, which was significantly different between lesion subtypes (multi-class AUC = 0.90, p < 0.001), except between I-HCA and HCC. Qualitative MRI features alone did not allow reliable differentiation between HCA subtypes and HCC (kappa = 0.35). However, combining qualitative MRI features and fractal analysis reliably predicted the histopathological diagnosis (kappa = 0.89) and improved differentiation of high-risk lesions (i.e., HCCs, b(ex3)-HCAs) and low-risk lesions (H-HCAs, I-HCAs) from sensitivity and specificity of 43% (95% confidence interval [CI] 23-66%) and 47% (CI 32-64%) for qualitative MRI features to 96% (CI 78-100%) and 68% (CI 51-81%), respectively, when adding fractal analysis. Conclusions Combining qualitative MRI features with fractal analysis allows identification of HCA subtypes and HCCs in patients with non-cirrhotic livers and improves differentiation of lesions with high and low risk for malignant transformation

Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia

Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. SPECT is most commonly used for clinical myocardial perfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial perfusion. MRI does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation, similar to echocardiography, which can be performed at the bedside. CT perfusion imaging is not frequently used but CT offers coronary angiography data, and invasive catheter-based methods can measure coronary flow and pressure. Technical improvements to the quantification of pathophysiological parameters of myocardial ischaemia can be achieved. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each technique were derived following a European quantitative cardiac imaging meeting and using a real-time Delphi process. SPECT using new detectors allows the quantification of myocardial blood flow and is now also suited to patients with a high BMI. PET is well suited to patients with multivessel disease to confirm or exclude balanced ischaemia. MRI allows the evaluation of patients with complex disease who would benefit from imaging of function and fibrosis in addition to perfusion. Echocardiography remains the preferred technique for assessing ischaemia in bedside situations, whereas CT has the greatest value for combined quantification of stenosis and characterization of atherosclerosis in relation to myocardial ischaemia. In patients with a high probability of needing invasive treatment, invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement is well suited to guide treatment decisions. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future technological potential of each imaging modality

Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study

OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric MRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment is sensitive but not specific for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study validates the diagnostic accuracy of the recently suggested fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion for detecting clinically significant cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Routine clinical MR imaging data, acquired at 3 T without an endorectal coil including dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, of 72 prostate cancer foci in 64 patients were analyzed. In-bore MRI-guided biopsy with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading served as reference standard. Previously established FD cutoffs for predicting tumor grade were compared to measurements of the apparent diffusion coefficient (25th percentile, ADC25) and PI-RADS assessment with and without inclusion of the FD as separate criterion. RESULTS: Fractal analysis allowed prediction of ISUP grade groups 1 to 4 but not 5, with high agreement to the reference standard (kappaFD = 0.88 [CI: 0.79-0.98]). Integrating fractal analysis into PI-RADS allowed a strong improvement in specificity and overall accuracy while maintaining high sensitivity for significant cancer detection (ISUP > 1; PI-RADS alone: sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 20%, area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.65; versus PI-RADS with fractal analysis: sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 88%, AUC = 0.92, p < 0.001). ADC25 only differentiated low-grade group 1 from pooled higher-grade groups 2-5 (kappaADC = 0.36 [CI: 0.12-0.59]). Importantly, fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC25 in predicting non-significant and clinically significant cancer (AUCFD = 0.96 versus AUCADC = 0.75, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by zone location. CONCLUSIONS: Fractal analysis is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer and adds independent information when implemented into PI-RADS assessment. This opens the opportunity to individually adjust biopsy priority and method in individual patients. KEY POINTS: * Fractal analysis of perfusion is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (kappaFD = 0.88). * Including the fractal dimension into PI-RADS as a separate criterion improved specificity (from 20 to 88%) and overall accuracy (AUC from 0.86 to 0.96) while maintaining high sensitivity (96% versus 95%) for predicting clinically significant cancer. * Fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC25 in predicting clinically significant cancer (AUCFD = 0.96 versus AUCADC = 0.75)

Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia

Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. SPECT is most commonly used for clinical myocardial perfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial perfusion. MRI does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation, similar to echocardiography, which can be performed at the bedside. CT perfusion imaging is not frequently used but CT offers coronary angiography data, and invasive catheter-based methods can measure coronary flow and pressure. Technical improvements to the quantification of pathophysiological parameters of myocardial ischaemia can be achieved. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each technique were derived following a European quantitative cardiac imaging meeting and using a real-time Delphi process. SPECT using new detectors allows the quantification of myocardial blood flow and is now also suited to patients with a high BMI. PET is well suited to patients with multivessel disease to confirm or exclude balanced ischaemia. MRI allows the evaluation of patients with complex disease who would benefit from imaging of function and fibrosis in addition to perfusion. Echocardiography remains the preferred technique for assessing ischaemia in bedside situations, whereas CT has the greatest value for combined quantification of stenosis and characterization of atherosclerosis in relation to myocardial ischaemia. In patients with a high probability of needing invasive treatment, invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement is well suited to guide treatment decisions. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future technological potential of each imaging modality

Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia

Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. SPECT is most commonly used for clinical myocardial perfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial perfusion. MRI does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation, similar to echocardiography, which can be performed at the bedside. CT perfusion imaging is not frequently used but CT offers coronary angiography data, and invasive catheter-based methods can measure coronary flow and pressure. Technical improvements to the quantification of pathophysiological parameters of myocardial ischaemia can be achieved. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each technique were derived following a European quantitative cardiac imaging meeting and using a real-time Delphi process. SPECT using new detectors allows the quantification of myocardial blood flow and is now also suited to patients with a high BMI. PET is well suited to patients with multivessel disease to confirm or exclude balanced ischaemia. MRI allows the evaluation of patients with complex disease who would benefit from imaging of function and fibrosis in addition to perfusion. Echocardiography remains the preferred technique for assessing ischaemia in bedside situations, whereas CT has the greatest value for combined quantification of stenosis and characterization of atherosclerosis in relation to myocardial ischaemia. In patients with a high probability of needing invasive treatment, invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement is well suited to guide treatment decisions. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future technological potential of each imaging modality