Literature DB >> 26032879

Comparison of magnetic resonance elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions.

Tiffany P Hennedige1, James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan1, Fiona P Leung1,2, Lynette Li San Teo1, Sridhar Iyer3, Gang Wang1,4, Stephen Chang3, Krishna Kumar Madhavan3, Aileen Wee5, Sudhakar K Venkatesh6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for differentiating malignant and benign focal liver lesions (FLLs).
METHODS: Seventy-nine subjects with 124 FLLs (44 benign and 80 malignant) underwent both MRE and DWI. MRE was performed with a modified gradient-echo sequence and DWI with a free breathing technique (b = 0.500). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and stiffness maps were generated. FLL mean stiffness and ADC values were obtained by placing regions of interest over the FLLs on stiffness and ADC maps. The accuracy of MRE and DWI for differentiation of benign and malignant FLL was compared using receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis.
RESULTS: There was a significant negative correlation between stiffness and ADC (r = -0.54, p < 0.0001) of FLLs. Malignant FLLs had significantly higher mean stiffness (7.9kPa vs. 3.1kPa, p < 0.001) and lower mean ADC (129 vs. 200 × 10(-3)mm(2)/s, p < 0.001) than benign FLLs. The sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value/negative predictive value for differentiating malignant from benign FLLs with MRE (cut-off, >4.54kPa) and DWI (cut-off, <151 × 10(-3)mm(2)/s) were 96.3/95.5/97.5/93.3% (p < 0.001) and 85/81.8/88.3/75% (p < 0.001), respectively. ROC analysis showed significantly higher accuracy for MRE than DWI (0.986 vs. 0.82, p = 0.0016).
CONCLUSION: MRE is significantly more accurate than DWI for differentiating benign and malignant FLLs. KEY POINTS: • MRE is superior to DWI for differentiating benign and malignant focal liver lesions. • Benign lesions with large fibrous components may have higher stiffness with MRE. • Cholangiocarcinomas tend to have higher stiffness than hepatocellular carcinomas. • Hepatocellular adenomas tend to have lower stiffness than focal nodular hyperplasia. • MRE is superior to conventional MRI in differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benign liver lesion; Diffusion-weighted MR imaging; Focal liver lesions; Magnetic resonance elastography; Malignant liver lesion

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26032879     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3835-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  28 in total

Review 1.  Focal nodular hyperplasia: findings at state-of-the-art MR imaging, US, CT, and pathologic analysis.

Authors:  Shahid M Hussain; Türkan Terkivatan; Pieter E Zondervan; Esmée Lanjouw; Sjoerd de Rave; Jan N M Ijzermans; Rob A de Man
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

2.  Utility of diffusion-weighted MRI in distinguishing benign and malignant hepatic lesions.

Authors:  Frank H Miller; Nancy Hammond; Aheed J Siddiqi; Sagar Shroff; Gaurav Khatri; Yi Wang; Laura B Merrick; Paul Nikolaidis
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Accurate differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma at gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging: prospective study.

Authors:  Luigi Grazioli; Giovanni Morana; Miles A Kirchin; Günther Schneider
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Barriers to drug delivery in solid tumors.

Authors:  R K Jain
Journal:  Sci Am       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.142

5.  Diffusion-weighted single-shot echoplanar MR imaging for liver disease.

Authors:  T Kim; T Murakami; S Takahashi; M Hori; K Tsuda; H Nakamura
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  MR elastography of liver tumors: preliminary results.

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

7.  Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging.

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

8.  Focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: detection and characterization with plain and dynamic-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  K J Mortelé; M Praet; H Van Vlierberghe; B de Hemptinne; K Zou; P R Ros
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec

9.  MR elastography of liver tumours: value of viscoelastic properties for tumour characterisation.

Authors:  Philippe Garteiser; Sabrina Doblas; Jean-Luc Daire; Mathilde Wagner; Helena Leitao; Valérie Vilgrain; Ralph Sinkus; Bernard E Van Beers
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update.

Authors:  Jordi Bruix; Morris Sherman
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 17.425

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  General review of magnetic resonance elastography.

Authors:  Gavin Low; Scott A Kruse; David J Lomas
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-28

2.  Value of tumor stiffness measured with MR elastography for assessment of response of hepatocellular carcinoma to locoregional therapy.

Authors:  Sonja Gordic; Jad Bou Ayache; Paul Kennedy; Cecilia Besa; Mathilde Wagner; Octavia Bane; Richard L Ehman; Edward Kim; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-06

Review 3.  Advances in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Tiffany Hennedige; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Magnetic Resonanance Imaging of the Liver (Including Biliary Contrast Agents)-Part 2: Protocols for Liver Magnetic Resonanance Imaging and Characterization of Common Focal Liver Lesions.

Authors:  Andrea Agostini; Moritz F Kircher; Richard K G Do; Alessandra Borgheresi; Serena Monti; Andrea Giovagnoni; Lorenzo Mannelli
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 0.800

Review 5.  MR elastography of liver: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Ilkay S Idilman; Jiahui Li; Meng Yin; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-23

6.  MR elastography of hepatocellular carcinoma: Correlation of tumor stiffness with histopathology features-Preliminary findings.

Authors:  Scott M Thompson; Jin Wang; Vishal S Chandan; Kevin J Glaser; Lewis R Roberts; Richard L Ehman; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 7.  Quantitative Elastography Methods in Liver Disease: Current Evidence and Future Directions.

Authors:  Paul Kennedy; Mathilde Wagner; Laurent Castéra; Cheng William Hong; Curtis L Johnson; Claude B Sirlin; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Imaging evaluation of sorafenib for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Tianying Zheng; Hanyu Jiang; Yi Wei; Zixing Huang; Jie Chen; Ting Duan; Bin Song
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 5.087

9.  Magnetic resonance elastography can predict development of hepatocellular carcinoma with longitudinally acquired two-point data.

Authors:  Shintaro Ichikawa; Utaroh Motosugi; Nobuyuki Enomoto; Hiroshi Onishi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Differentiation of benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses using magnetic resonance elastography with spin-echo echo planar imaging and three-dimensional inversion reconstruction: a prospective study.

Authors:  Yu Shi; Feng Gao; Yue Li; Shengzhen Tao; Bing Yu; Zaiyi Liu; Yanqing Liu; Kevin J Glaser; Richard L Ehman; Qiyong Guo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.