Optimizing Portal Venous Phase Acquisition Quality of Contrast-Enhanced CT in Oncology.
Authors
Affiliations (10)
Affiliations (10)
- Département d'Imagerie Médicale, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, 94800 Villejuif, France.
- Department of Internal Medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
- Département d'Innovation Thérapeutique et d'Essais Précoces (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, 94805 Villejuif, France.
- Biomaps, UMR1281, INSERM, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (CEA), Université Paris Saclay, 94800 Villejuif, France.
- Department of Radiology, Pellegrin University Hospital, 33000 Bordeaux, France.
- Bordeaux Institute of Oncology, BRIC U1312, INSERM, Team 'SARCOTARGET', 33000 Bordeaux, France.
- Department of Neuroradiology, Brest University Hospital, LaTIM (INSERM UMR 1101), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 29609 Brest Cedex, France.
- Division of International Patients Care, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94800 Villejuif, France.
- Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Abstract
<b>Background</b>: Portal venous phase (PVP) contrast-enhanced CT is a cornerstone for response assessment in early-phase oncology trials, yet contrast-enhancement phase timing remains insufficiently monitored across sites. We assessed PVP timing using a validated artificial intelligence (AI) quality control tool (CECT-QC). <b>Methods</b>: In this retrospective multicenter study, 402 CT examinations from 402 patients enrolled in phase I oncology trials across three European institutions were analyzed using CECT-QC, which quantifies aortic and portal venous enhancement to classify contrast-enhancement phase. The primary analysis included 335 standard CT examinations. Optimal PVP classification was compared (i) across institutions, (ii) before vs. after French regulatory changes impacting contrast delivery, and (iii) across scanner technologies (photon-counting CT [PCCT] vs. standard CT). <b>Results</b>: Among the 335 standard CT examinations included in the primary analysis, 53.1% (178/335) were classified by CECT-QC as optimal PVP. Optimal PVP rates were 39.0% (32/82) at Institution A, 56.9% (87/153) at Institution B, and 59.0% (59/100) at Institution C, with a significant adjusted institutional association (<i>p</i> = 0.039). No significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change (<i>p</i> = 0.716). At Institution A, standard CT was associated with higher odds of optimal PVP classification than PCCT (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.07-4.68; <i>p</i> = 0.031), while PCCT showed higher aortic and portal venous attenuation (both <i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions</b>: Approximately half of standard CT examinations in phase I oncology trials were classified as optimal PVP. Classification varied significantly across institutions and by scanner technology, whereas no significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change. These findings support continued quality-control monitoring, protocol harmonization, and adaptation of classification tools to emerging CT platforms.