Das CJ, Thingujam U, Panda A, Sharma S, Gupta AK. Perfusion computed tomography in renal cell carcinoma. World J Radiol 2015; 7(7): 170-179 [PMID: 26217456 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i7.170]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Dr. Chandan J Das, MD, DNB, MNAMS, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 63, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029, India. docchandan17@gmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Article-Type of This Article
Minireviews
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Rate of transfer of contrast agent from the intravascular to the extravascular compartment
mL/100 gm per minute
Vascular immaturity
Mean transit time
Average time taken to travel from artery to vein
s
Perfusion pressure
Time to peak
Time from arrival of the contrast in major arterial vessels to thepeak enhancement
s
Perfusion pressure
Maximum peak intensity
Maximum increase in tissue density after contrast injection
HU
Tissue blood volume
Table 3 Perfusion computed tomography parameter values for kidney (renal cell carcinoma vs normal renal cortex)[7]
Normal renal cortex (mean ± SD)
Renal cell carcinoma (mean ± SD)
t value
P value
Blood flow (mL/min per 100 g)
454.32 ± 110.90
261.96 ± 175.86
-7.620
0.000
Blood volume (mL/100 g)
23.53 ± 5.71
17.17 ± 8.34
-5.193
0.000
Mean transit time (s)
3.62 ± 1.38
7.08 ± 3.42
7.670
0.000
Permeability (mL/min per 100 g)
63.95 ± 18.85
25.07 ± 13.20
-14.193
0.000
Table 4 Response evaluation using changes in computed tomography perfusion parameters in two representative cases
Date of study
MIP (HU)
TTP (s)
BF (mL/100 mL per minute)
BV (mL/100 mL)
MTT (s)
PMB (mL/100 mL per minute)
Case 1
2013-4-2
Normal cortex
120
11.1
202.9
31.6
8.7
47.1
Renal tumour
134
13.5
184.9
30.8
10.4
45.95
2013-9-11
Normal cortex
121
13.2
209
30.2
9.2
50.2
Renal tumour
79
11.5
174
13.2
5
18.1
2013-11-20
Normal cortex
130
10.8
229
32
9.6
45.3
Renal tumour
42
12.3
5.7
1.2
12.4
8.2
Case 2
2013-10-23
Normal cortex
157
11.9
236
27.8
8.9
43.7
Renal tumour
88
12.3
64.4
9.3
8.9
18.7
2013-12-26
Normal cortex
140
15.2
170.9
29.5
10.5
42.1
Renal tumour
82.7
14.8
60.9
7.9
8.4
13.8
2013-8-3
Normal cortex
216
12.5
315
38
72
55.2
Renal tumour
84.6
12.3
72.3
8
7.4
10.8
Table 5 Comparison of the acquisition parameters and dose in dynamic acquisition of perfusion computed tomography and normal contrast enhanced computed tomography chest and abdomen in our institute
Dynamic acquisition
Chest and abdomenscan (routine)
Exposure time (s)
33
14.24
Scan length (mm)
155
655
Collimation (mm)
1.2
0.6
KVp
100
100
Ma
523
211
CTDI vol (mGy)
180.1
7.2
DLP (mGycm)
2789.69
458.68
Citation: Das CJ, Thingujam U, Panda A, Sharma S, Gupta AK. Perfusion computed tomography in renal cell carcinoma. World J Radiol 2015; 7(7): 170-179