PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating between hepatic hemangiomas, both typical and atypical, and other hypervascular liver lesions. METHODS: Retrospective review of 182 hypervascular liver lesions in 117 patients was performed. Diffusion and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were performed using a 1.5-T unit. Imaging protocol consisted of T2-weighted fast spin-echo images, breath-hold diffusion-weighted echo-planar images, and breath-hold unenhanced and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted 3-dimensional fat-suppressed spoiled gradient-echo images in the arterial phase (20 seconds) and portal venous phase (60 seconds). Signal intensity changes and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were evaluated for all lesions. Unpaired t test was used to compare the mean ADC values for different lesions, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.01. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating hemangiomas from other hypervascular liver lesions. RESULTS: Lesions included typical and atypical hemangioma (n = 38), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; n = 58), focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH; n = 22), and neuroendocrine tumor metastasis (NET; n = 64) with a mean tumor size of 5.3 cm. Mean ADC value for hemangioma, HCC, FNH, and NET was 2.29 x 10(-3), 1.55 x 10(-3), 1.65 x 10(-3), and 1.43 x 10(-3) mm2/s, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the ADC value of hemangioma compared with that of FNH (P < 0.001), HCC (P < 0.001), and NET (P < 0.001), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and ADC maps can provide rapid quantifiable information to differentiate typical and atypical hemangiomas from other hypervascular liver lesions.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating between hepatic hemangiomas, both typical and atypical, and other hypervascular liver lesions. METHODS: Retrospective review of 182 hypervascular liver lesions in 117 patients was performed. Diffusion and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were performed using a 1.5-T unit. Imaging protocol consisted of T2-weighted fast spin-echo images, breath-hold diffusion-weighted echo-planar images, and breath-hold unenhanced and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted 3-dimensional fat-suppressed spoiled gradient-echo images in the arterial phase (20 seconds) and portal venous phase (60 seconds). Signal intensity changes and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were evaluated for all lesions. Unpaired t test was used to compare the mean ADC values for different lesions, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.01. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating hemangiomas from other hypervascular liver lesions. RESULTS: Lesions included typical and atypical hemangioma (n = 38), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; n = 58), focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH; n = 22), and neuroendocrine tumor metastasis (NET; n = 64) with a mean tumor size of 5.3 cm. Mean ADC value for hemangioma, HCC, FNH, and NET was 2.29 x 10(-3), 1.55 x 10(-3), 1.65 x 10(-3), and 1.43 x 10(-3) mm2/s, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the ADC value of hemangioma compared with that of FNH (P < 0.001), HCC (P < 0.001), and NET (P < 0.001), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and ADC maps can provide rapid quantifiable information to differentiate typical and atypical hemangiomas from other hypervascular liver lesions.
Authors: Bradford A Moffat; Thomas L Chenevert; Charles R Meyer; Paul E McKeever; Daniel E Hall; Benjamin A Hoff; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: W P Hosch; S M Schmidt; S Plaza; C Dechow; J Schmidt; S Ley; G W Kauffmann; J Hansmann Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrew D Hardie; Mohit Naik; Elizabeth M Hecht; Hersh Chandarana; Lorenzo Mannelli; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: John N Morelli; Henrik J Michaely; Mathias M Meyer; Thassilo Rustemeyer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Ulrike I Attenberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 3.240