OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the sensitivity of diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the detection of pathologically confirmed uveal melanoma liver metastases (UMLM). METHODS: Twenty patients who underwent complete surgical resection of their UMLM (N = 83) were included. Pre-surgery liver MR imaging included T2-weighted, T1-weighted, DW and dynamic-gadolinium-enhanced MR sequences. Two radiologists independently reviewed three sets of images (DW / morphologic-dynamic / combined) for each patient using intraoperative and pathological findings as a standard of reference. RESULTS: The sensitivities of the morphologic-dynamic and DW images for UMLM detection were 63 % and 59 %, respectively, for reader #1 (R1) and 64 % and 53 %, for reader #2 (R2). Sensitivity of the combined set was higher than sensitivity in the two other sets (R1:69 %, R2:67 %), but was only significantly different than the sensitivity of the DW images (McNemar test). For the three sets and the two readers, the sensitivity for UMLM smaller than 5 mm (37-46 %) was significantly lower than that for UMLM larger than 5 mm (67-90 %). The sensitivity for UMLM located in the subcapsular area (41-54 %) was significantly lower than that for intraparenchymal UMLM (68-86 %) (Chi-square test). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the addition of DW imaging to morphologic-dynamic images does not significantly increase MR sensitivities for UMLM detection. KEY POINTS: • The MR imaging sensitivity for uveal melanoma liver metastases (UMLM) was 69 %. • Addition of DW imaging to morphologic-dynamic images does not increase sensitivity significantly. • Sensitivity for subcapsular UMLM was significantly lower than sensitivity for intraparenchymal UMLM. • The T2 shortening effect does not appear to influence lesion detection in DWI.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the sensitivity of diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the detection of pathologically confirmed uveal melanoma liver metastases (UMLM). METHODS: Twenty patients who underwent complete surgical resection of their UMLM (N = 83) were included. Pre-surgery liver MR imaging included T2-weighted, T1-weighted, DW and dynamic-gadolinium-enhanced MR sequences. Two radiologists independently reviewed three sets of images (DW / morphologic-dynamic / combined) for each patient using intraoperative and pathological findings as a standard of reference. RESULTS: The sensitivities of the morphologic-dynamic and DW images for UMLM detection were 63 % and 59 %, respectively, for reader #1 (R1) and 64 % and 53 %, for reader #2 (R2). Sensitivity of the combined set was higher than sensitivity in the two other sets (R1:69 %, R2:67 %), but was only significantly different than the sensitivity of the DW images (McNemar test). For the three sets and the two readers, the sensitivity for UMLM smaller than 5 mm (37-46 %) was significantly lower than that for UMLM larger than 5 mm (67-90 %). The sensitivity for UMLM located in the subcapsular area (41-54 %) was significantly lower than that for intraparenchymal UMLM (68-86 %) (Chi-square test). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the addition of DW imaging to morphologic-dynamic images does not significantly increase MR sensitivities for UMLM detection. KEY POINTS: • The MR imaging sensitivity for uveal melanoma liver metastases (UMLM) was 69 %. • Addition of DW imaging to morphologic-dynamic images does not increase sensitivity significantly. • Sensitivity for subcapsular UMLM was significantly lower than sensitivity for intraparenchymal UMLM. • The T2 shortening effect does not appear to influence lesion detection in DWI.
Authors: D Gomez; C Wetherill; J Cheong; L Jones; E Marshall; B Damato; S E Coupland; P Ghaneh; G J Poston; H Z Malik; S W Fenwick Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: S Leyvraz; S Piperno-Neumann; S Suciu; J F Baurain; M Zdzienicki; A Testori; E Marshall; M Scheulen; T Jouary; S Negrier; J B Vermorken; E Kaempgen; X Durando; D Schadendorf; R Karra Gurunath; U Keilholz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Tejas Parikh; Stephen J Drew; Vivian S Lee; Samson Wong; Elizabeth M Hecht; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shailender Bhatia; James Moon; Kim A Margolin; Jeffrey S Weber; Christopher D Lao; Megan Othus; Ana M Aparicio; Antoni Ribas; Vernon K Sondak Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ahmed E Othman; Thomas K Eigentler; Georg Bier; Christina Pfannenberg; Hans Bösmüller; Christian Thiel; Claus Garbe; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernhard Klumpp Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 5.315