BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare quadruple-phase multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of focal and diffuse liver disease. METHODS: Quadruple-phase contrast-enhanced MDCT and MRI of 37 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed by two readers (R1 and R2). In patients with focal liver lesions, the gold standard was histopathology (n = 17) and/or long-term (>6 months) follow-up imaging (n = 27) or transarterial chemoembolization (n = 1). Diffuse liver disease was confirmed by histopathology in all patients, when present. RESULTS: Both readers identified 60 focal liver lesions on MDCT and 56 focal liver lesions on MRI. Gold standard diagnoses revealed 48 focal liver lesions in 25 patients. Diagnosis of malignant liver lesions revealed a sensitivity of 88% (R1) and 91% (R2) for MRI; 63% (R1) and 66% (R2) for MDCT; and a specificity of 75% (R1) and 79% (R2) for MRI; 50% (R1) and 64% (R2) for MDCT. MRI was superior to MDCT for the diagnosis of malignant focal liver lesions, when the mean areas under the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic curves (A(Z)) were compared (MRI = 0.93 vs CT = 0.69), (P < 0.00001). Thirty-three patients had histopathologically confirmed diffuse liver disease. Overall diagnosis of diffuse liver disease revealed a sensitivity of 88% (R1) and 92% (R2) for MRI; 75% (R1) and 74% (R2) for MDCT; and a specificity of 100% for both modalities by both readers. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is superior for the assessment of malignant focal liver lesions and diffuse liver disease compared to quadruple-phase MDCT, and can be considered as primary diagnostic imaging modality for liver imaging.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare quadruple-phase multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of focal and diffuse liver disease. METHODS: Quadruple-phase contrast-enhanced MDCT and MRI of 37 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed by two readers (R1 and R2). In patients with focal liver lesions, the gold standard was histopathology (n = 17) and/or long-term (>6 months) follow-up imaging (n = 27) or transarterial chemoembolization (n = 1). Diffuse liver disease was confirmed by histopathology in all patients, when present. RESULTS: Both readers identified 60 focal liver lesions on MDCT and 56 focal liver lesions on MRI. Gold standard diagnoses revealed 48 focal liver lesions in 25 patients. Diagnosis of malignant liver lesions revealed a sensitivity of 88% (R1) and 91% (R2) for MRI; 63% (R1) and 66% (R2) for MDCT; and a specificity of 75% (R1) and 79% (R2) for MRI; 50% (R1) and 64% (R2) for MDCT. MRI was superior to MDCT for the diagnosis of malignant focal liver lesions, when the mean areas under the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic curves (A(Z)) were compared (MRI = 0.93 vs CT = 0.69), (P < 0.00001). Thirty-three patients had histopathologically confirmed diffuse liver disease. Overall diagnosis of diffuse liver disease revealed a sensitivity of 88% (R1) and 92% (R2) for MRI; 75% (R1) and 74% (R2) for MDCT; and a specificity of 100% for both modalities by both readers. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is superior for the assessment of malignant focal liver lesions and diffuse liver disease compared to quadruple-phase MDCT, and can be considered as primary diagnostic imaging modality for liver imaging.
Authors: Michael A Fischer; Bertil Leidner; Nikolaos Kartalis; Anders Svensson; Peter Aspelin; Nils Albiin; Torkel B Brismar Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 5.315