Eduardo A C Costa1, Guilherme M Cunha1, Emmanuil Smorodinsky1, Irene Cruite1, An Tang1, Robert M Marks1, Lisa Clark1, Tanya Wolfson1, Anthony Gamst1, Jason K Sicklick1, Alan Hemming1, Michael R Peterson1, Michael S Middleton1, Claude B Sirlin1. 1. From the Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California-San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226 (E.A.C.C., G.M.C., E.S., I.C., A.T., R.M.M., L.C., M.S.M., C.B.S.); Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, Calif (R.M.M.); Computational and Applied Statistics Laboratory, San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, Calif (T.W., A.G.); Department of Surgery and Moores Cancer Center, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, Calif (J.K.S., A.H.); and Western Washington Pathology and Multicare Health System, Tacoma, Wash (M.R.P.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine per-lesion sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the diagnosis of malignant lesions by using matched (spatially correlated) hepatectomy pathologic findings as the reference standard. Materials and METHODS: In this prospective, institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 20 patients (nine men, 11 women; mean age, 59 years) with malignant liver lesions who gave written informed consent underwent preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T MR imaging for surgical planning. Two image sets were independently analyzed by three readers to detect liver lesions (set 1 without and set 2 with hepatobiliary phase [HBP] images). Hepatectomy specimen ex vivo MR imaging assisted in matching gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T MR imaging findings with pathologic findings. Interreader agreement was assessed by using the Cohen κ coefficient. Per-lesion sensitivity and PPV were calculated. RESULTS: Cohen κ values were 0.64-0.76 and 0.57-0.84, and overall per-lesion sensitivity was 45% (42 of 94 lesions) to 56% (53 of 94 lesions) and 58% (55 of 94 lesions) to 64% (60 of 94 lesions) for sets 1 and 2, respectively. The addition of HBP imaging did not affect interreader agreement but significantly improved overall sensitivity for one reader (P < .05) and almost for another (P = .05). Sensitivity for 0.2-0.5-cm lesions was 0% (0 of 26 lesions) to 8% (two of 26 lesions) for set 1 and 4% (one of 26 lesions) to 12% (three of 26 lesions) for set 2. Sensitivity for 0.6-1.0-cm lesions was 28% (nine of 32 lesions) to 59% (19 of 32 lesions) for set 1 and 66% (21 of 32 lesions) to 69% (22 of 32 lesions) for set 2. Sensitivity for lesions at least 1.0 cm in diameter was at least 81% (13 of 16 lesions) for set 1 and was not improved for set 2. PPV was 98% (56 of 57 lesions) to 100% (60 of 60 lesions) for all readers without differences between image sets or lesion size. CONCLUSION: Gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T MR imaging provides high per-lesion sensitivity and PPV for preoperative malignant liver lesion detection overall, although sensitivity for 0.2-0.5-cm malignant lesions is poor.
PURPOSE: To determine per-lesion sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the diagnosis of malignant lesions by using matched (spatially correlated) hepatectomy pathologic findings as the reference standard. Materials and METHODS: In this prospective, institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 20 patients (nine men, 11 women; mean age, 59 years) with malignant liver lesions who gave written informed consent underwent preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T MR imaging for surgical planning. Two image sets were independently analyzed by three readers to detect liver lesions (set 1 without and set 2 with hepatobiliary phase [HBP] images). Hepatectomy specimen ex vivo MR imaging assisted in matching gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T MR imaging findings with pathologic findings. Interreader agreement was assessed by using the Cohen κ coefficient. Per-lesion sensitivity and PPV were calculated. RESULTS: Cohen κ values were 0.64-0.76 and 0.57-0.84, and overall per-lesion sensitivity was 45% (42 of 94 lesions) to 56% (53 of 94 lesions) and 58% (55 of 94 lesions) to 64% (60 of 94 lesions) for sets 1 and 2, respectively. The addition of HBP imaging did not affect interreader agreement but significantly improved overall sensitivity for one reader (P < .05) and almost for another (P = .05). Sensitivity for 0.2-0.5-cm lesions was 0% (0 of 26 lesions) to 8% (two of 26 lesions) for set 1 and 4% (one of 26 lesions) to 12% (three of 26 lesions) for set 2. Sensitivity for 0.6-1.0-cm lesions was 28% (nine of 32 lesions) to 59% (19 of 32 lesions) for set 1 and 66% (21 of 32 lesions) to 69% (22 of 32 lesions) for set 2. Sensitivity for lesions at least 1.0 cm in diameter was at least 81% (13 of 16 lesions) for set 1 and was not improved for set 2. PPV was 98% (56 of 57 lesions) to 100% (60 of 60 lesions) for all readers without differences between image sets or lesion size. CONCLUSION:Gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T MR imaging provides high per-lesion sensitivity and PPV for preoperative malignant liver lesion detection overall, although sensitivity for 0.2-0.5-cm malignant lesions is poor.
Authors: Scott K Nagle; Reed F Busse; Anja C Brau; Jean H Brittain; Alex Frydrychowicz; Yuji Iwadate; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mustafa R Bashir; Rajan T Gupta; Matthew S Davenport; Brian C Allen; Tracy A Jaffe; Lisa M Ho; Daniel T Boll; Elmar M Merkle Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: D Löwenthal; M Zeile; W Y Lim; C Wybranski; F Fischbach; G Wieners; M Pech; S Kropf; J Ricke; O Dudeck Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-10-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Renate Hammerstingl; Alexander Huppertz; Josy Breuer; Thomas Balzer; Anthony Blakeborough; Rick Carter; Lluis Castells Fusté; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Werner Judmaier; Michael Laniado; Riccardo M Manfredi; Didier G Mathieu; Dieter Müller; Koenraad Mortelè; Peter Reimer; Maximilian F Reiser; Philip J Robinson; Kohkan Shamsi; Michael Strotzer; Matthias Taupitz; Bernd Tombach; Gianluca Valeri; Bernhard E van Beers; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-12-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Victoria R Rendell; Emily R Winslow; Timothy J Colgan; S Krisztian Kovacs; Matthias R Mühler; Gesine Knobloch; Agnes G Loeffler; Rashmi M Agni; Scott B Reeder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Guilherme Moura Cunha; Kyle A Hasenstab; Atsushi Higaki; Kang Wang; Timo Delgado; Ryan L Brunsing; Alexandra Schlein; Armin Schwartzman; Albert Hsiao; Claude B Sirlin; Katie J Fowler Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Stefan C A Steens; Elise M Bekers; Willem L J Weijs; Geert J S Litjens; Andor Veltien; Arie Maat; Guido B van den Broek; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Jürgen J Fütterer; Christina A Hulsbergen van der Kaa; Matthias A W Merkx; Robert P Takes Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.924