Literature DB >> 3310094

Hepatic metastases: randomized, controlled comparison of detection with MR imaging and CT.

D D Stark1, J Wittenberg, R J Butch, J T Ferrucci.   

Abstract

To determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging relative to computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of liver metastases, a randomized, controlled study was conducted of 135 subjects, including 57 with cancer metastatic to the liver, 27 with benign cysts or hemangiomas, and 51 without focal liver disease. The sensitivity of MR imaging for detecting individual metastatic deposits was 64%, significantly greater than 51% for CT (P less than .001); the difference in sensitivity for identifying patients with one or more hepatic metastases was less (82% for MR imaging vs. 80% for CT). In patients without hepatic metastases, the specificity of MR imaging was 99% versus 94% for CT. Significant differences were found between individual MR pulse sequences in detection of individual lesions. The sensitivity of both T1-weighted spin-echo (SE) (64%) and inversion-recovery (IR) (65%) pulse sequences was significantly (P less than .001) greater than either the TE (echo time) 60 msec (43%) or TE 120 msec (43%) T2-weighted pulse sequences. Overall, the accuracy of a single T1-weighted (10-minute) pulse sequence was superior to that of contrast-enhanced CT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3310094     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.165.2.3310094

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  9 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance imaging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  L M Fayad; D G Mitchell
Journal:  Int J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2001

Review 2.  Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  T M Harris; M D Cohen
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1989

3.  Comparative evaluation of the liver in dogs with a splenic mass by using ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography.

Authors:  Roelof A Irausquin; Thomas D Scavelli; Lisa Corti; Joseph D Stefanacci; Joann DeMarco; Shannon Flood; Barton W Rohrbach
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.008

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance imaging--2: Clinical uses.

Authors:  P Armstrong; S F Keevil
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-07-13

5.  Hepatic metastases: CT versus MR imaging at 1.5T.

Authors:  V G Vassiliades; W D Foley; J Alarcon; T Lawson; S Erickson; J B Kneeland; H V Steinberg; M E Bernardino
Journal:  Gastrointest Radiol       Date:  1991

6.  Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions.

Authors:  J A Barakos; H I Goldberg; J J Brown; T J Gilbert
Journal:  Gastrointest Radiol       Date:  1990

7.  Liver lesion detection: comparison between excitation-spoiling fat suppression and regular spin-echo at 1.5T.

Authors:  R C Semelka; H Hricak; K G Bis; W C Werthmuller; C B Higgins
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  1993

8.  Preoperative evaluation of patients for liver resection. Appropriate CT imaging.

Authors:  R C Karl; S S Morse; R D Halpert; R A Clark
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Accuracy of intraoperative ultrasonography in diagnosing liver metastasis from colorectal cancer: evaluation with postoperative follow-up results.

Authors:  J Machi; H Isomoto; T Kurohiji; Y Yamashita; K Shirouzu; T Kakegawa; B Sigel; H A Zaren; J Sariego
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1991 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.352

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.