Literature DB >> 22572989

MR elastography of liver tumours: value of viscoelastic properties for tumour characterisation.

Philippe Garteiser1, Sabrina Doblas, Jean-Luc Daire, Mathilde Wagner, Helena Leitao, Valérie Vilgrain, Ralph Sinkus, Bernard E Van Beers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of the viscoelastic parameters in the characterisation of liver tumours at MR elastography. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients with liver tumours >1 cm prospectively underwent MR elastography using 50-Hz mechanical waves and a full three-directional motion-sensitive sequence. The model-free viscoelastic parameters (the complex shear modulus and its real and imaginary parts, i.e. the storage and loss moduli) were calculated in 72 lesions after exclusion of cystic, treated or histopathologically undetermined tumours.
RESULTS: We observed higher absolute shear modulus and loss modulus in malignant versus benign tumours (3.38 ± 0.26 versus 2.41 ± 0.15 kPa, P < 0.01 and 2.25 ± 0.26 versus 1.05 ± 0.13 kPa, P < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, the loss modulus of hepatocellular carcinomas was significantly higher than in benign hepatocellular tumours. The storage modulus did not differ significantly between malignant and benign tumours. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of loss modulus was significantly larger than that of the absolute shear modulus and storage modulus when comparing malignant and benign lesions.
CONCLUSIONS: The increased loss modulus is a better discriminator between benign and malignant tumours than the increased storage modulus or absolute value of the shear modulus. KEY POINTS : • Magnetic Resonance elastography is a new method of assessing the liver. • Increased loss modulus is an indicator of malignancy in hepatic tumours. • Loss modulus is a better discriminator than absolute shear modulus values. • The viscoelastic properties of lesions offer promise for characterising liver tumours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22572989     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2474-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  40 in total

1.  Towards an acoustic model-based poroelastic imaging method: I. Theoretical foundation.

Authors:  Gearóid P Berry; Jeffrey C Bamber; Cecil G Armstrong; Naomi R Miller; Paul E Barbone
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  Noninvasive assessment of the rheological behavior of human organs using multifrequency MR elastography: a study of brain and liver viscoelasticity.

Authors:  Dieter Klatt; Uwe Hamhaber; Patrick Asbach; Jürgen Braun; Ingolf Sack
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Magnetic resonance elastography with a phased-array acoustic driver system.

Authors:  Yogesh K Mariappan; Phillip J Rossman; Kevin J Glaser; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis.

Authors:  Laurent Huwart; Christine Sempoux; Eric Vicaut; Najat Salameh; Laurence Annet; Etienne Danse; Frank Peeters; Leon C ter Beek; Jacques Rahier; Ralph Sinkus; Yves Horsmans; Bernard E Van Beers
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Hepatocellular adenomas: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and liver biopsy in subtype classification.

Authors:  Maxime Ronot; Stephane Bahrami; Julien Calderaro; Dominique-Charles Valla; Pierre Bedossa; Jacques Belghiti; Jacques Belghti; Valérie Vilgrain; Valérie Paradis
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 6.  Magnetic resonance imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Bachir Taouli; Mariela Losada; Agnes Holland; Glenn Krinsky
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Micromechanics and ultrastructure of actin filament networks crosslinked by human fascin: a comparison with alpha-actinin.

Authors:  Y Tseng; E Fedorov; J M McCaffery; S C Almo; D Wirtz
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2001-07-06       Impact factor: 5.469

8.  Assessment of liver viscoelasticity using multifrequency MR elastography.

Authors:  Patrick Asbach; Dieter Klatt; Uwe Hamhaber; Jürgen Braun; Rajan Somasundaram; Bernd Hamm; Ingolf Sack
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  MR elastography of liver tumors: preliminary results.

Authors:  Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Meng Yin; James F Glockner; Naoki Takahashi; Philip A Araoz; Jayant A Talwalkar; Richard L Ehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update.

Authors:  Jordi Bruix; Morris Sherman
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 17.425

View more
  47 in total

1.  Estimation of the absolute shear stiffness of human lung parenchyma using (1) H spin echo, echo planar MR elastography.

Authors:  Yogesh K Mariappan; Kevin J Glaser; David L Levin; Robert Vassallo; Rolf D Hubmayr; Carl Mottram; Richard L Ehman; Kiaran P McGee
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  MR elastography derived shear stiffness--a new imaging biomarker for the assessment of early tumor response to chemotherapy.

Authors:  Kay M Pepin; Jun Chen; Kevin J Glaser; Yogesh K Mariappan; Brian Reuland; Steven Ziesmer; Rickey Carter; Stephen M Ansell; Richard L Ehman; Kiaran P McGee
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Value of tumor stiffness measured with MR elastography for assessment of response of hepatocellular carcinoma to locoregional therapy.

Authors:  Sonja Gordic; Jad Bou Ayache; Paul Kennedy; Cecilia Besa; Mathilde Wagner; Octavia Bane; Richard L Ehman; Edward Kim; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-06

4.  Assessing the accuracy and reproducibility of modality independent elastography in a murine model of breast cancer.

Authors:  Jared A Weis; Katelyn M Flint; Violeta Sanchez; Thomas E Yankeelov; Michael I Miga
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-07-02

5.  Derivation and analysis of viscoelastic properties in human liver: impact of frequency on fibrosis and steatosis staging.

Authors:  Kathryn R Nightingale; Ned C Rouze; Stephen J Rosenzweig; Michael H Wang; Manal F Abdelmalek; Cynthia D Guy; Mark L Palmeri
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.725

6.  Comparison of magnetic resonance elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions.

Authors:  Tiffany P Hennedige; James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan; Fiona P Leung; Lynette Li San Teo; Sridhar Iyer; Gang Wang; Stephen Chang; Krishna Kumar Madhavan; Aileen Wee; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Advances in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Tiffany Hennedige; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Magnetic resonance elastography of abdomen.

Authors:  Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2015-04

Review 9.  MR Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Adrienne N Dula; C Chad Quarles; Ashley M Stokes; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Igor Zhukov; Jason M Williams; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 10.  Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in cancer: Technique, analysis, and applications.

Authors:  Kay M Pepin; Richard L Ehman; Kiaran P McGee
Journal:  Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 9.795

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.