PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in follow-up of patients with hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) who were treated with radiofrequency (RF) ablation and to compare it with that of four-phase multi-detector row computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2007 to May 2008, 36 patients (43 HCCs) were enrolled who were treated with RF ablation (tumor size, 20-47 mm; mean, 24.5 mm) and underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging and four-phase (precontrast, arterial, portal venous, and equilibrium) multidetector CT for follow-up. Two radiologists independently reviewed these images, and conspicuity of tumor margins and detection of residual or recurrent tumor were assessed on a five-point scale with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean conspicuity value of tumor margins was significantly higher on MR imaging than on multidetector CT (P < .001). The degree of differentiation between residual/recurrent tumor and hyperemia was significantly greater on MR imaging (P < .001). The mean area under the ROC curve was significantly higher with MR imaging (P = .015), as were sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of detection rate (mean, 100%, 96.2%, 82.4%, 100%, and 96.7%, respectively, vs 41.7%, 56.8%, 13.5%, 85.7%, and 54.7% for multidetector CT). The interobserver agreement rate for MR imaging was higher (0.919) than for multidetector CT (0.672; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy, conspicuity of tumor margins, and detection rate of residual or recurrent tumor were found to be better with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging than with four-phase multidetector CT. Copyright 2010 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in follow-up of patients with hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) who were treated with radiofrequency (RF) ablation and to compare it with that of four-phase multi-detector row computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2007 to May 2008, 36 patients (43 HCCs) were enrolled who were treated with RF ablation (tumor size, 20-47 mm; mean, 24.5 mm) and underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging and four-phase (precontrast, arterial, portal venous, and equilibrium) multidetector CT for follow-up. Two radiologists independently reviewed these images, and conspicuity of tumor margins and detection of residual or recurrent tumor were assessed on a five-point scale with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean conspicuity value of tumor margins was significantly higher on MR imaging than on multidetector CT (P < .001). The degree of differentiation between residual/recurrent tumor and hyperemia was significantly greater on MR imaging (P < .001). The mean area under the ROC curve was significantly higher with MR imaging (P = .015), as were sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of detection rate (mean, 100%, 96.2%, 82.4%, 100%, and 96.7%, respectively, vs 41.7%, 56.8%, 13.5%, 85.7%, and 54.7% for multidetector CT). The interobserver agreement rate for MR imaging was higher (0.919) than for multidetector CT (0.672; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy, conspicuity of tumor margins, and detection rate of residual or recurrent tumor were found to be better with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging than with four-phase multidetector CT. Copyright 2010 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Anum Aslam; Amita Kamath; Bradley Spieler; Mark Maschiocchi; Carl F Sabottke; Victoria Chernyak; Sara C Lewis Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: T F Greten; N P Malek; S Schmidt; J Arends; P Bartenstein; W Bechstein; T Bernatik; M Bitzer; A Chavan; M Dollinger; D Domagk; O Drognitz; M Düx; S Farkas; G Folprecht; P Galle; M Geißler; G Gerken; D Habermehl; T Helmberger; K Herfarth; R T Hoffmann; M Holtmann; P Huppert; T Jakobs; M Keller; J Klempnauer; F Kolligs; J Körber; H Lang; F Lehner; F Lordick; A Lubienski; M P Manns; A Mahnken; M Möhler; C Mönch; P Neuhaus; C Niederau; M Ocker; G Otto; P Pereira; G Pott; J Riemer; K Ringe; U Ritterbusch; E Rummeny; P Schirmacher; H J Schlitt; K Schlottmann; V Schmitz; A Schuler; H Schulze-Bergkamen; D von Schweinitz; D Seehofer; H Sitter; C P Straßburg; C Stroszczynski; D Strobel; A Tannapfel; J Trojan; I van Thiel; A Vogel; F Wacker; H Wedemeyer; H Wege; A Weinmann; C Wittekind; B Wörmann; C J Zech Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 2.000