Literature DB >> 25286324

Incremental value of liver MR imaging in patients with potentially curable colorectal hepatic metastasis detected at CT: a prospective comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging, and a combination of both MR techniques.

Hye Jin Kim1, Seung Soo Lee, Jae Ho Byun, Jin Cheon Kim, Chang Sik Yu, Seong Ho Park, Ah Young Kim, Hyun Kwon Ha.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging, gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, both techniques combined (combined MR imaging), and computed tomography (CT) for detecting colorectal hepatic metastases and evaluate incremental value of MR for patients with potentially curable colorectal hepatic metastases detected with CT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, with informed consent, 51 patients (39 men, 12 women; mean age, 62 years) with potentially resectable hepatic metastases detected with CT underwent liver MR, including DW imaging and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR. Two independent readers reviewed DW, gadoxetic acid-enhanced, combined MR, and CT image sets to detect hepatic metastases. The figure-of-merit (FOM) value representing overall diagnostic performance, sensitivity, and positive predictive value (PPV) for each image set were analyzed by using free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis and generalized estimating equations.
RESULTS: There were 104 hepatic metastases in 47 patients. The pooled FOM values, sensitivities, and PPVs of combined MR (FOM value, 0.93; sensitivity, 98%; and PPV, 88%) and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR (FOM value, 0.92; sensitivity, 95%; and PPV, 90%) were significantly higher than those of CT (FOM value, 0.82; sensitivity, 85%; and PPV, 73%) (P < .006). The pooled FOM value and sensitivity of combined MR (FOM value, 0.92; sensitivity, 95%) was also significantly higher than that of DW imaging (FOM value, 0.82; sensitivity, 79%) for metastases (≤1-cm diameter) (P ≤ .003). DW imaging showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (79%) and PPV (60%) than CT (sensitivity, 50%; PPV, 33%) for the metastases (≤1-cm diameter) (P ≤ .004). In 47 patients with hepatic metastases, combined MR depicted more metastases than CT in 10 and 14 patients, respectively, according to both readers.
CONCLUSION: Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR and combined MR are more accurate than CT in detecting colorectal hepatic metastases, have an incremental value when added to CT alone for detecting additional metastases, and can be routinely performed in patients with potentially curable hepatic metastases detected with CT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25286324     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  36 in total

1.  Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with impaired renal function undergoing fixed-dose gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ti-Yung Tseng; Jeng-Hwei Tseng; Bing-Shen Huang; Shen-Yen Lin; Chun-Bing Chen; Yi-Wen Fang; Gigin Lin; Ying-Chieh Lai
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-03-20

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CT, MRI and FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal cancer liver metastases in patients considered eligible for hepatic resection and/or local ablation.

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

3.  Radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced CT for classification of hepatic focal lesions in colorectal cancer patients: its limitations compared to radiologists.

Authors:  Heejin Bae; Hansang Lee; Sungwon Kim; Kyunghwa Han; Hyungjin Rhee; Dong-Kyu Kim; Hyuk Kwon; Helen Hong; Joon Seok Lim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  MRI in medical practice and its future use in radiation oncology. Resume of XXV GOCO Congress (Montpellier) 2017.

Authors:  Xavier Druet; Estrella Acosta Sanchez; Ken Soleakhena; Anne Laprie; Jordi Sáez; Stéphanie Nougaret; Olivier Riou; Elodie Rigal; Laura Kibranian; Miguel Palacios; Ismael Membrive
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2019-06-05

Review 5.  Computed Tomography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Hepatic Lesion Characterization/Diagnosis.

Authors:  Khaled Y Elbanna; Ania Z Kielar
Journal:  Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken)       Date:  2021-04-13

6.  Disappearing or residual tiny (≤5 mm) colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging: Is local treatment required?

Authors:  Seung Soo Kim; Kyoung Doo Song; Young Kon Kim; Hee Cheol Kim; Jung Wook Huh; Young Suk Park; Joon Oh Park; Seung Tae Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from its various mimickers in liver magnetic resonance imaging: What are the tips when using hepatocyte-specific agents?

Authors:  Yang Shin Park; Chang Hee Lee; Jeong Woo Kim; Sora Shin; Cheol Min Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Intraoperative Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Colorectal Liver Metastasis Surgery Improves the Identification and Characterization of Nodules.

Authors:  Julien Hoareau; Aurélien Venara; Jérôme Lebigot; Jean-Francois Hamel; Emilie Lermite; Francois Xavier Caroli-Bosc; Christophe Aube
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Disappearing liver metastases from colorectal cancer: impact of modern imaging modalities.

Authors:  Christian Sturesson; Jan Nilsson; Gert Lindell; Roland G Andersson; Inger Keussen
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 3.647

10.  SEOM/SERAM consensus statement on radiological diagnosis, response assessment and follow-up in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  R García-Carbonero; R Vera; F Rivera; E Parlorio; M Pagés; E González-Flores; C Fernández-Martos; M Á Corral; R Bouzas; F Matute
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 3.405

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.