Stefano Colagrande1, Alessandro Castellani2, Cosimo Nardi3, Chiara Lorini4, Linda Calistri5, Antonella Filippone6. 1. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, Florence 50134, Italy. Electronic address: stefano.colagrande@unifi.it. 2. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, Florence 50134, Italy. Electronic address: ale.andro@hotmail.it. 3. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, Florence 50134, Italy. Electronic address: cosimo.nardi@unifi.it. 4. Department of Health Science, University of Florence, viale GB Morgagni 48, Florence 50134, Italy. Electronic address: chiara.lorini@unifi.it. 5. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, Florence 50134, Italy. Electronic address: linda.calistri@unifi.it. 6. Departement of Neurosciences and Imaging, Section of Radiological Imaging, "G. d'Annunzio" University-Ospedale SS. Annunziata, Via dei Vestini, Chieti 66013, Italy. Electronic address: a.filippone@rad.unich.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the role of DWI vs. gadoxetic-acid-disodium enhanced MRI in the detection of colorectal hepatic metastases. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with 115 hepatic metastases were included in this retrospective study, approved by the Ethical Board. All patients underwent intraoperative-ultrasound and surgical resection within two weeks after MRI. Images were grouped in 4 sets, which were analyzed by two radiologists in different sessions: unenhanced T1-T2w (set A), set A plus DWI (set B), set A plus gadoxetic-acid-disodium (set C), set A plus DWI plus gadoxetic-acid-disodium (set D). For each set, metastases presence/size/site was reported. Interobserver agreement and statistical significance were assessed by Cohen's kappa and Mc-Nemar's test, respectively. RESULTS: Readers' agreement was always very good (k>0.80). Mean sensitivity values were 84.3/92.1/95.6/97.3% for set A/B/C/D, respectively. Mean specificity, positive predicted, negative predicted, and accuracy values strongly and progressively increased in the various set too: from 62.5% (set A) to 85.0% as for specificity, from 92.8% to 97.3% as for positive predicted value, from 41.0% to 85.1% as for negative predicted value, and from 81.1% to 95.5% as for accuracy. For each reader from set A to D, the number of false negatives progressively decreases. CONCLUSIONS: For both readers, DWI improved all statistical parameters in the unenhanced examinations, as for nodules either smaller or greater than 1cm, while in the EOB-enhanced examinations DWI prevalently increased specificity/negative predictive value.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the role of DWI vs. gadoxetic-acid-disodium enhanced MRI in the detection of colorectal hepatic metastases. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with 115 hepatic metastases were included in this retrospective study, approved by the Ethical Board. All patients underwent intraoperative-ultrasound and surgical resection within two weeks after MRI. Images were grouped in 4 sets, which were analyzed by two radiologists in different sessions: unenhanced T1-T2w (set A), set A plus DWI (set B), set A plus gadoxetic-acid-disodium (set C), set A plus DWI plus gadoxetic-acid-disodium (set D). For each set, metastases presence/size/site was reported. Interobserver agreement and statistical significance were assessed by Cohen's kappa and Mc-Nemar's test, respectively. RESULTS: Readers' agreement was always very good (k>0.80). Mean sensitivity values were 84.3/92.1/95.6/97.3% for set A/B/C/D, respectively. Mean specificity, positive predicted, negative predicted, and accuracy values strongly and progressively increased in the various set too: from 62.5% (set A) to 85.0% as for specificity, from 92.8% to 97.3% as for positive predicted value, from 41.0% to 85.1% as for negative predicted value, and from 81.1% to 95.5% as for accuracy. For each reader from set A to D, the number of false negatives progressively decreases. CONCLUSIONS: For both readers, DWI improved all statistical parameters in the unenhanced examinations, as for nodules either smaller or greater than 1cm, while in the EOB-enhanced examinations DWI prevalently increased specificity/negative predictive value.
Authors: Jana Taron; Jonas Johannink; Michael Bitzer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Rüdiger Hoffmann Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: B G Sibinga Mulder; K Visser; S Feshtali; A L Vahrmeijer; R J Swijnenburg; H H Hartgrink; R van den Boom; M C Burgmans; J S D Mieog Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 1.930