OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 64-row MDCT and gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI at 3.0 T in patients with colorectal liver metastases in correlation with histopathological findings. METHODS: Lesions detected at MDCT and MRI were interpreted by three blinded readers and compared with histopathological workup as the term of reference. Two subgroups of lesions were additionally evaluated: (1) metastases smaller than 10 mm and (2) lesions in patients with and without steatosis of the liver, assessed histopathologically. RESULTS: Surgery and histopathological workup revealed 81 colorectal liver metastases in 35 patients and diffuse metastatic involvement in 3 patients. In a lesion-by-lesion analysis, significant sensitivity differences could only be found for reader 1 (P = 0.035) and reader 3 (P = 0.003). For segment-based evaluation, MRI was more sensitive only for reader 3 (P = 0.012). The number of false-positive results ranged from 3 to 12 for MDCT and 8 to 11 for MRI evaluation. In the group of small lesions, the sensitivity differed significantly between both methods (P = 0.003). In patients with hepatic steatosis, MRI showed a trend toward better performance than MDCT, but without statistical performance. CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0-T MRI with liver-specific contrast agents is the preferred investigation in the preoperative setting, especially for the assessment of small colorectal liver metastases. KEY POINTS: • Potential surgical treatment requires accurate radiological assessment of colorectal liver metastases • Magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetic acid is the preferred imaging investigation. • MRI is better than multidetector CT for detecting small liver metastases.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 64-row MDCT and gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI at 3.0 T in patients with colorectal liver metastases in correlation with histopathological findings. METHODS: Lesions detected at MDCT and MRI were interpreted by three blinded readers and compared with histopathological workup as the term of reference. Two subgroups of lesions were additionally evaluated: (1) metastases smaller than 10 mm and (2) lesions in patients with and without steatosis of the liver, assessed histopathologically. RESULTS: Surgery and histopathological workup revealed 81 colorectal liver metastases in 35 patients and diffuse metastatic involvement in 3 patients. In a lesion-by-lesion analysis, significant sensitivity differences could only be found for reader 1 (P = 0.035) and reader 3 (P = 0.003). For segment-based evaluation, MRI was more sensitive only for reader 3 (P = 0.012). The number of false-positive results ranged from 3 to 12 for MDCT and 8 to 11 for MRI evaluation. In the group of small lesions, the sensitivity differed significantly between both methods (P = 0.003). In patients with hepatic steatosis, MRI showed a trend toward better performance than MDCT, but without statistical performance. CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0-T MRI with liver-specific contrast agents is the preferred investigation in the preoperative setting, especially for the assessment of small colorectal liver metastases. KEY POINTS: • Potential surgical treatment requires accurate radiological assessment of colorectal liver metastases • Magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetic acid is the preferred imaging investigation. • MRI is better than multidetector CT for detecting small liver metastases.
Authors: O Dahlqvist Leinhard; N Dahlström; J Kihlberg; P Sandström; T B Brismar; O Smedby; P Lundberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-10-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas J Vogl; Wolfram Schwarz; Stefan Blume; Michael Pietsch; Kohkan Shamsi; Martina Franz; Hartmut Lobeck; Thomas Balzer; Kelly del Tredici; Peter Neuhaus; Roland Felix; Renate M Hammerstingl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-09-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carlo Bartolozzi; Francescamaria Donati; Dania Cioni; Carlo Procacci; Giovanni Morana; Antonio Chiesa; Luigi Grazioli; Giorgio Cittadini; Giuseppe Cittadini; Andrea Giovagnoni; Giovanni Gandini; Jochen Maass; Riccardo Lencioni Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-08-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: B S Kuszyk; D A Bluemke; B A Urban; M A Choti; R H Hruban; J V Sitzmann; E K Fishman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kim Sivesgaard; Lars P Larsen; Michael Sørensen; Stine Kramer; Sven Schlander; Nerijus Amanavicius; Arindam Bharadwaz; Dennis Tønner Nielsen; Frank Viborg Mortensen; Erik Morre Pedersen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Larissa L Fujii-Lau; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Marco J Bruno; Kenneth J Chang; John M DeWitt; Paul Fockens; David Forcione; Bertrand Napoleon; Laurent Palazzo; Mark D Topazian; Maurits J Wiersema; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan E Clain; Douglas O Faigel; Ferga C Gleeson; Robert Hawes; Prasad G Iyer; Elizabeth Rajan; Tyler Stevens; Michael B Wallace; Kenneth K Wang; Michael J Levy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Li Feng; Justin Ream; Annie Wang; James S Babb; Kai Tobias Block; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Andreas Gutzeit; Simon Matoori; Johannes M Froehlich; Constantin von Weymarn; Carolin Reischauer; Orpheus Kolokythas; Matthias Goyen; Klaus Hergan; Matthias Meissnitzer; Rosemarie Forstner; Jan D Soyka; Aleksis Doert; Dow-Mu Koh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Guido M Kukuk; Stephanie G Schaefer; Rolf Fimmers; Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Samer Ezziddin; Ulrich Spengler; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 5.315