S A Choi1, S S Lee, I-H Jung, H A Kim, J H Byun, M-G Lee. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of gadoxetic acid enhancement on the detection and characterisation of focal hepatic lesions on T(2) weighted and diffusion weighted (DW) images. METHODS: A total of 63 consecutive patients underwent T(2) weighted and DW imaging before and after gadoxetic acid enhancement. Two blinded readers independently identified all of the focal lesions using a five-point confidence scale and characterised each lesion using a three-point scale: 1, non-solid; 2, indeterminate; and 3, solid. For both T(2) weighted and DW imaging, the accuracies for detecting focal lesions were compared using the free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis; the accuracies for lesion characterisation were compared using the McNemar test between non-enhanced and gadoxetic acid-enhanced image sets. For hepatic lesions ≥ 1 cm, the lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were compared in the non-enhanced and enhanced image sets using the generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: For both T(2) weighted and DW images, the accuracies for detecting focal lesions (p ≥ 0.52) and those for lesion characterisation (p ≥ 0.63) did not differ significantly between the non-enhanced and enhanced image sets. The lesion-to-liver CNR was significantly higher on enhanced DW images than on non-enhanced DW images (p=0.02), although the difference was not significant for T(2) weighted imaging (p=0.65). The mean ADC values of lesions did not differ significantly on enhanced and non-enhanced DW imaging (p=0.75). CONCLUSION: The acquisition of T(2) weighted and DW images after administration of gadoxetic acid has no significant effect on the detection or characterisation of focal hepatic lesions, although it improves the lesion-to-liver CNR on DW images.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of gadoxetic acid enhancement on the detection and characterisation of focal hepatic lesions on T(2) weighted and diffusion weighted (DW) images. METHODS: A total of 63 consecutive patients underwent T(2) weighted and DW imaging before and after gadoxetic acid enhancement. Two blinded readers independently identified all of the focal lesions using a five-point confidence scale and characterised each lesion using a three-point scale: 1, non-solid; 2, indeterminate; and 3, solid. For both T(2) weighted and DW imaging, the accuracies for detecting focal lesions were compared using the free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis; the accuracies for lesion characterisation were compared using the McNemar test between non-enhanced and gadoxetic acid-enhanced image sets. For hepatic lesions ≥ 1 cm, the lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were compared in the non-enhanced and enhanced image sets using the generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: For both T(2) weighted and DW images, the accuracies for detecting focal lesions (p ≥ 0.52) and those for lesion characterisation (p ≥ 0.63) did not differ significantly between the non-enhanced and enhanced image sets. The lesion-to-liver CNR was significantly higher on enhanced DW images than on non-enhanced DW images (p=0.02), although the difference was not significant for T(2) weighted imaging (p=0.65). The mean ADC values of lesions did not differ significantly on enhanced and non-enhanced DW imaging (p=0.75). CONCLUSION: The acquisition of T(2) weighted and DW images after administration of gadoxetic acid has no significant effect on the detection or characterisation of focal hepatic lesions, although it improves the lesion-to-liver CNR on DW images.
Authors: Juha Halavaara; Josy Breuer; Carmen Ayuso; Thomas Balzer; Marie-France Bellin; Lennart Blomqvist; Rick Carter; Luigi Grazioli; Renate Hammerstingl; Alexander Huppertz; Gregor Jung; Denis Krause; Andrea Laghi; Edward Leen; Luciano Lupatelli; Luca Marsili; Julio Martin; E Scott Pretorius; Caroline Reinhold; Michael Stiskal; Alan H Stolpen Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: William A Moore; Gaurav Khatri; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Robert D Sims; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrea Agostini; Moritz F Kircher; Richard K G Do; Alessandra Borgheresi; Serena Monti; Andrea Giovagnoni; Lorenzo Mannelli Journal: Semin Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 0.800