Optimizing Portal Venous Phase Acquisition Quality of Contrast-Enhanced CT in Oncology

Background: 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). Methods: 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). Results: 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 (p = 0.039). No significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change (p = 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; p = 0.031), while PCCT showed higher aortic and portal venous attenuation (both p < 0.001). Conclusions: 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16203372
Primary Topic
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Optimizing Portal Venous Phase Acquisition Quality of Contrast-Enhanced CT in Oncology

Laurent Dercle, Marie Porte, Amir Zemmouri, Capucine Baldini et al.
Diagnostics
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
article

Optimizing Portal Venous Phase Acquisition Quality of Contrast-Enhanced CT in Oncology

Laurent Dercle, Marie Porte, Amir Zemmouri, Capucine Baldini, Samy Ammari, D. Ben Salem, Corinne Balleyguier, Amandine Crombé, Nathalie Lassau, Rémy Barbé, Gabriel Garcia, Christophe Massard, Tania Moussa, Marcus Talke, Tarek Aissi, Arnaud Dupont, Mabel Nuernberg
article en

Abstract

Background: 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). Methods: 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). Results: 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 (p = 0.039). No significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change (p = 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; p = 0.031), while PCCT showed higher aortic and portal venous attenuation (both p < 0.001). Conclusions: 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.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(20)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US), Inserm (FR), Université de Bretagne Occidentale (FR), Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR), Université Paris-Saclay (FR), Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US), Institut Gustave Roussy (FR), Bordeaux Population Health (FR), Hôpital Pellegrin (FR), Laboratoire d'Imagerie Biomédicale Multimodale Paris-Saclay (FR)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.