AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of ferucarbotran-enhanced MR imaging in the detection of focal hepatic lesions compared to plain and Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with suspected focal hepatic lesions were admitted to the study. Plain MR imaging (FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression and GRE T(1)WI sequences) and Gd-DTPA dynamic enhanced MR of the liver were initially performed followed by ferucarbotran-enhanced MR imaging 48 h later (including GRE T(1)WI, FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, and GRE T(2)WI sequences). Images were reviewed independently by three observers. Results were correlated with surgery and pathologic examination or reference examination, and sensitivity was statistically calculated for the different MR imaging sequences. RESULTS: Among all confirmed lesions (n = 133), ferucarbotran-enhanced MR imaging revealed 130 lesions on FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, 115 lesions on dynamic T(1)WI GRE, and 127 lesions on GRE T(2)WI. Pre-contrast MR imaging revealed only 84 lesions on GRE T(1)WI and 106 lesions on FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, while Gd-DTPA dynamic enhanced GRE T(1)WI revealed 123 lesions. For 44 micro-lesions (< 1.0 cm) in all patients the detection rates were as follows: ferucarbotran-enhanced FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, 93.2% (41/44); ferucarbotran-enhanced GRE T(2)WI, 88.6% (39/44); Gd-DTPA dynamic-enhanced GRE T(1)WI, 79.5% (35/44); pre-contrast FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, 54.5% (24/44); and pre-contrast GRE T(1)WI, 34.1% (15/44). In detecting micro-lesions, statistically significant difference was found for Ferucarbotran-enhanced FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression and GRE T(2)WI sequences compared to the other sequences (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Ferucarbotran-enhanced FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression and GRE T(2)WI sequences are superior in detecting micro-lesions (< 1 cm) in comparison with plain and Gd-DTPA dynamic-enhanced MR imaging.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of ferucarbotran-enhanced MR imaging in the detection of focal hepatic lesions compared to plain and Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with suspected focal hepatic lesions were admitted to the study. Plain MR imaging (FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression and GRE T(1)WI sequences) and Gd-DTPA dynamic enhanced MR of the liver were initially performed followed by ferucarbotran-enhanced MR imaging 48 h later (including GRE T(1)WI, FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, and GRE T(2)WI sequences). Images were reviewed independently by three observers. Results were correlated with surgery and pathologic examination or reference examination, and sensitivity was statistically calculated for the different MR imaging sequences. RESULTS: Among all confirmed lesions (n = 133), ferucarbotran-enhanced MR imaging revealed 130 lesions on FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, 115 lesions on dynamic T(1)WI GRE, and 127 lesions on GRE T(2)WI. Pre-contrast MR imaging revealed only 84 lesions on GRE T(1)WI and 106 lesions on FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, while Gd-DTPA dynamic enhanced GRE T(1)WI revealed 123 lesions. For 44 micro-lesions (< 1.0 cm) in all patients the detection rates were as follows: ferucarbotran-enhanced FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, 93.2% (41/44); ferucarbotran-enhanced GRE T(2)WI, 88.6% (39/44); Gd-DTPA dynamic-enhanced GRE T(1)WI, 79.5% (35/44); pre-contrast FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression, 54.5% (24/44); and pre-contrast GRE T(1)WI, 34.1% (15/44). In detecting micro-lesions, statistically significant difference was found for Ferucarbotran-enhanced FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression and GRE T(2)WI sequences compared to the other sequences (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Ferucarbotran-enhanced FSE T(2)WI with fat suppression and GRE T(2)WI sequences are superior in detecting micro-lesions (< 1 cm) in comparison with plain and Gd-DTPA dynamic-enhanced MR imaging.
Authors: S J McLachlan; M R Morris; M A Lucas; R A Fisco; M N Eakins; D R Fowler; R B Scheetz; A Y Olukotun Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1994 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Seong Hyun Kim; Dongil Choi; Seung Hoon Kim; Jae Hoon Lim; Won Jae Lee; Min Ju Kim; Hyo K Lim; Soon Jin Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Matsuo; M Kanematsu; K Itoh; K Ito; Y Maetani; H Kondo; N Kako; N Matsunaga; H Hoshi; J Shiraishi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: E Okon; D Pouliquen; P Okon; Z V Kovaleva; T P Stepanova; S G Lavit; B N Kudryavtsev; P Jallet Journal: Lab Invest Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: P R Ros; P C Freeny; S E Harms; S E Seltzer; P L Davis; T W Chan; A E Stillman; L R Muroff; V M Runge; M A Nissenbaum Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B Hamm; T Staks; M Taupitz; R Maibauer; A Speidel; A Huppertz; T Frenzel; R Lawaczeck; K J Wolf; L Lange Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1994 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.813