Literature DB >> 20027569

Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Irene Floriani1, Valter Torri, Eliana Rulli, Daniela Garavaglia, Anna Compagnoni, Luca Salvolini, Andrea Giovagnoni.   

Abstract

Surgery of liver metastases can be effective, and the appropriate selection of surgical candidates relies first on imaging. Different techniques are available, but information on their relative performance is unclear. The aim of this overview is to assess the imaging modality performance in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles published from January 2000 to August 2008. Eligible trials had to be conducted on patients with diagnosis/suspicion of CRC liver metastases, comparing more than two modalities among MRI, computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography using fluoro-18-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET), ultrasonography (US). Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity were calculated and pair-wise comparisons were performed. Of 6030 screened articles, 25 were eligible. Sensitivity and specificity on a per-patient basis for US, CT, MRI, and FDG-PET were 63.0% and 97.6%, 74.8% and 95.6%, 81.1% and 97.2, and 93.8% and 98.7%, respectively. On a per-lesion basis, sensitivity was 86.3%, 82.6%, 86.3%, and 86.0%, respectively. Specificity was reported in few studies. MRI showed a better sensitivity than CT in per-patient (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.99; P = 0.05) and in per-lesion analysis (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.55-0.80; P < 0.0001). In per-lesion analysis, the difference was higher when liver-specific contrast agents were administered. Available evidence supports the MRI use for the detection of CRC liver metastases. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20027569     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  66 in total

1.  The role of 18FDG PET/CT in the management of colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Alec H Engledow; James R A Skipworth; Farrokh Pakzad; Charles Imber; Peter J Ell; Ashley M Groves
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Does the choice of baseline liver imaging influence patient outcome after resection of colorectal liver metastases?

Authors:  John McCall
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 3.647

3.  Manganese chloride tetrahydrate (CMC-001) enhanced liver MRI: evaluation of efficacy and safety in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Nils Albiin; Nikolaos Kartalis; Annika Bergquist; Bita Sadigh; Torkel B Brismar
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Correlation between calcified liver metastases and histopathology of primary colorectal carcinoma in Chinese.

Authors:  Liying Xu; Yunfeng Zhou; Dasheng Qiu
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2010-12-22

5.  The value of liver magnetic resonance imaging in patients with findings of resectable pancreatic cancer on computed tomography.

Authors:  Cindy Chew; Patrick J O'Dwyer
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.858

6.  Radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced CT for classification of hepatic focal lesions in colorectal cancer patients: its limitations compared to radiologists.

Authors:  Heejin Bae; Hansang Lee; Sungwon Kim; Kyunghwa Han; Hyungjin Rhee; Dong-Kyu Kim; Hyuk Kwon; Helen Hong; Joon Seok Lim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Assessment of the value of MRI scan in addition to CT in the pre-operative staging of colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  M G Wiggans; G Shahtahmassebi; S Aroori; M J Bowles; S A Jackson; D A Stell
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2014-06

Review 8.  [CT and MRI of the liver: when, what, why?]

Authors:  J Budjan; S O Schoenberg; U I Attenberger
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 9.  PET and MR imaging: the odd couple or a match made in heaven?

Authors:  Ciprian Catana; Alexander R Guimaraes; Bruce R Rosen
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Prospective diagnostic test accuracy comparison of computed tomography during arterial portography and Primovist magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative assessment of colorectal cancer liver metastases.

Authors:  Jai S Bagia; Alan Chai; Roger Chou; Christopher Chu; John Rouse; Elizabeth Sinclair; Leon Vonthethoff; Armando Teixeira-Pinto
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 3.647

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.