Valérie Vilgrain1,2,3, Maxime Esvan4,5, Maxime Ronot6,7,8, Aurore Caumont-Prim4,5, Christophe Aubé9,10, Gilles Chatellier4,5,11. 1. Department of Radiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University Hospitals Paris Nord Val de Seine, Beaujon, Clichy, Hauts-de-Seine, France. valerie.vilgrain@bjn.aphp.fr. 2. University Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. valerie.vilgrain@bjn.aphp.fr. 3. INSERM U1149, Centre de Recherche Biomédicale Bichat-Beaujon, CRB3, Paris, France. valerie.vilgrain@bjn.aphp.fr. 4. Hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, Unité d'Épidémiologie et de Recherche Clinique, 75015, Paris, France. 5. INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique 1418, module Épidémiologie Clinique, 75015, Paris, France. 6. Department of Radiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University Hospitals Paris Nord Val de Seine, Beaujon, Clichy, Hauts-de-Seine, France. 7. University Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. 8. INSERM U1149, Centre de Recherche Biomédicale Bichat-Beaujon, CRB3, Paris, France. 9. Department of Radiology, CHU d'Angers, Angers, France. 10. Laboratoire HIFIH, LUNAM, Université d'Angers, Angers, France. 11. Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 75006, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To obtain the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted (DW) and gadoxetic-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the detection of liver metastases. METHODS: A comprehensive search (EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane) was performed to identify relevant articles up to June 2015. Inclusion criteria were: liver metastases, DW-MR imaging and/or gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging, and per-lesion statistics. The reference standard was histopathology, intraoperative observation and/or follow-up. Sources of bias were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A linear mixed-effect regression model was used to obtain sensitivity estimates. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles were included (1,989 patients, 3,854 metastases). Sensitivity estimates for DW-MR imaging, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging and the combined sequence for detecting liver metastases on a per-lesion basis was 87.1 %, 90.6 % and 95.5 %, respectively. Sensitivity estimates by gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging and the combined sequence were significantly better than DW-MR imaging (p = 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively), and the combined MR sequence was significantly more sensitive than gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging (p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed in articles that compared the three techniques simultaneously, with only colorectal liver metastases and in liver metastases smaller than 1 cm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with liver metastases, combined DW-MR and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging has the highest sensitivity for detecting liver metastases on a per-lesion basis. KEY POINTS: • DW-MRI is less sensitive than gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for detecting liver metastases • DW-MRI and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is the best combination • Same results are observed in colorectal liver metastases • Same results are observed in liver metastases smaller than 1 cm • Same results are observed when histopathology alone is the reference standard.
OBJECTIVES: To obtain the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted (DW) and gadoxetic-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the detection of liver metastases. METHODS: A comprehensive search (EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane) was performed to identify relevant articles up to June 2015. Inclusion criteria were: liver metastases, DW-MR imaging and/or gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging, and per-lesion statistics. The reference standard was histopathology, intraoperative observation and/or follow-up. Sources of bias were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A linear mixed-effect regression model was used to obtain sensitivity estimates. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles were included (1,989 patients, 3,854 metastases). Sensitivity estimates for DW-MR imaging, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging and the combined sequence for detecting liver metastases on a per-lesion basis was 87.1 %, 90.6 % and 95.5 %, respectively. Sensitivity estimates by gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging and the combined sequence were significantly better than DW-MR imaging (p = 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively), and the combined MR sequence was significantly more sensitive than gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging (p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed in articles that compared the three techniques simultaneously, with only colorectal liver metastases and in liver metastases smaller than 1 cm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with liver metastases, combined DW-MR and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging has the highest sensitivity for detecting liver metastases on a per-lesion basis. KEY POINTS: • DW-MRI is less sensitive than gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for detecting liver metastases • DW-MRI and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is the best combination • Same results are observed in colorectal liver metastases • Same results are observed in liver metastases smaller than 1 cm • Same results are observed when histopathology alone is the reference standard.
Authors: Chusilp Charnsangavej; Bryan Clary; Yuman Fong; Axel Grothey; Timothy M Pawlik; Michael A Choti Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Stefano Palmucci; Letizia Antonella Mauro; Martina Messina; Brunella Russo; Giovanni Failla; Pietro Milone; Massimiliano Berretta; Giovanni Carlo Ettorre Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2012-07-28
Authors: G Ercolani; G Vetrone; G L Grazi; M Cescon; P Di Gioia; M Ravaioli; M Del Gaudio; F Tuci; M Zanello; A Cucchetti; A D Pinna Journal: Minerva Chir Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Stephen Thomas; Marko K Ivancevic; Farid Dahi; Carsten Rist; Ila Sethi; Aytekin Oto Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Hye Jin Kim; Seung Soo Lee; Jae Ho Byun; Jin Cheon Kim; Chang Sik Yu; Seong Ho Park; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Neri; M A Bali; A Ba-Ssalamah; P Boraschi; G Brancatelli; F Caseiro Alves; L Grazioli; T Helmberger; J M Lee; R Manfredi; L Martì-Bonmatì; C Matos; E M Merkle; B Op De Beeck; W Schima; S Skehan; V Vilgrain; C Zech; C Bartolozzi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C J Zech; P Korpraphong; A Huppertz; T Denecke; M J Kim; W Tanomkiat; E Jonas; A Ba-Ssalamah Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 6.939
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: Seo-Youn Choi; Young Kon Kim; Ji Hye Min; Dong Ik Cha; Woo Kyoung Jeong; Won Jae Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maria Franca Meloni; Jason Chiang; Paul F Laeseke; Christoph F Dietrich; Angela Sannino; Marco Solbiati; Elisabetta Nocerino; Christopher L Brace; Fred T Lee Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: Mariëlle J A Jansen; Hugo J Kuijf; Maarten Niekel; Wouter B Veldhuis; Frank J Wessels; Max A Viergever; Josien P W Pluim Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2019-10-15