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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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