OBJECTIVE: The full diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in the evaluation of liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using extracellular gadolinium chelates, with the reference standard established by consensus interpretation of confirmatory imaging and histopathologic data. METHODS: MR examinations of 51 patients with extrahepatic malignancies were retrospectively reviewed by two independent observers who assessed DW-MRI and CE-MRI for detection of liver metastases. RESULTS: By reference standard, 93 liver lesions (49 metastases and 44 benign lesions) were identified in 27 patients, 11 patients had no liver lesions, and 13 patients had innumerable metastatic and/or benign lesions. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods for either observer for the diagnosis of metastatic lesions per patient. For per-lesion analysis, sensitivity of DW-MRI was equivalent to CE-MRI for observer 1 (67.3% vs. 63.3%, p = 0.67), but lower for observer 2 (65.3% vs. 83.7%, p = 0.007). By pooling data from both observers, the sensitivity of DW-MRI was 66.3% (65/98) and 73.5% (72/98) for CE-MRI, with no significant difference (p = 0.171). CONCLUSION: DW-MRI is a reasonable alternative to CE-MRI for the detection of liver metastases.
OBJECTIVE: The full diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in the evaluation of liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using extracellular gadolinium chelates, with the reference standard established by consensus interpretation of confirmatory imaging and histopathologic data. METHODS: MR examinations of 51 patients with extrahepatic malignancies were retrospectively reviewed by two independent observers who assessed DW-MRI and CE-MRI for detection of liver metastases. RESULTS: By reference standard, 93 liver lesions (49 metastases and 44 benign lesions) were identified in 27 patients, 11 patients had no liver lesions, and 13 patients had innumerable metastatic and/or benign lesions. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods for either observer for the diagnosis of metastatic lesions per patient. For per-lesion analysis, sensitivity of DW-MRI was equivalent to CE-MRI for observer 1 (67.3% vs. 63.3%, p = 0.67), but lower for observer 2 (65.3% vs. 83.7%, p = 0.007). By pooling data from both observers, the sensitivity of DW-MRI was 66.3% (65/98) and 73.5% (72/98) for CE-MRI, with no significant difference (p = 0.171). CONCLUSION: DW-MRI is a reasonable alternative to CE-MRI for the detection of liver metastases.
Authors: R Bammer; S L Keeling; M Augustin; K P Pruessmann; R Wolf; R Stollberger; H P Hartung; F Fazekas Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Shahid M Hussain; Jan De Becker; Wim C J Hop; Soendersing Dwarkasing; Piotr A Wielopolski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tejas Parikh; Stephen J Drew; Vivian S Lee; Samson Wong; Elizabeth M Hecht; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lorenzo Mannelli; Jeffrey H Maki; Sherif F Osman; Hersh Chandarana; David J Lomas; William P Shuman; Ken F Linnau; Douglas E Green; Giacomo Laffi; Miriam Moshiri Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Frank J Wessels; Marcel Verheij; Edwin P M Jansen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Bruno Borens; Marianna Arvanitakis; Julie Absil; Saïd El Bouchaibi; Celso Matos; Pierre Eisendrath; Emmanuel Toussaint; Jacques Deviere; Maria Antonietta Bali Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 5.315