Literature DB >> 3786786

Liver metastasis detection: comparative sensitivities of MR imaging and CT scanning.

J W Reinig, A J Dwyer, D L Miller, M White, J A Frank, P H Sugarbaker, A E Chang, J L Doppman.   

Abstract

Twenty patients with known liver metastases were evaluated by unenhanced computed tomography (CT), scans enhanced with ethiodized oil emulsion-13 (EOE-13), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with three pulse sequences. Spin-echo (SE) 300/26 (repetition time/echo time, in msec) images prospectively demonstrated 95.4% of the detectable liver metastases; inversion recovery (IR) 1,500/100 (repetition time/inversion time, in msec) images revealed 90.8%; and EOE-13-enhanced CT scans showed 87.1%. SE 2,000/80 images showed 51.4%, and unenhanced CT scans 49.6%, of the metastases. The relationship of vascular anatomy to metastatic foci was best seen on SE 300/26 images and EOE-CT scans. SE 300/26, IR 1,500/100, and EOE-CT studies particularly improved detection of lesions in the 1-2-cm range compared with SE 2,000/80 imaging or unenhanced CT scanning. SE 300/26 and IR 1,500/100 sequences appear comparable to EOE-CT scans in demonstrating liver metastases and significantly superior to conventional CT scans. Because EOE-13 is generally not available, these MR sequences should be the procedure of choice for the diagnosis of liver metastases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3786786     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.162.1.3786786

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


  11 in total

1.  Focal hepatic lesions: detection by dynamic and delayed computed tomography versus short TE/TR spin echo and fast field echo magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  R C Nelson; J L Chezmar; H V Steinberg; W E Torres; B R Baumgartner; R K Gedgaudas-McClees; M E Bernardino
Journal:  Gastrointest Radiol       Date:  1988

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver.

Authors:  A A Moss
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1987-11

3.  New staging investigations for lung cancer: what will they have to offer to be clinically useful?

Authors:  J S Brown; R Rudd
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1995-06

4.  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

5.  Comparative study between ultrasound, computed tomography, intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of tumors of the liver.

Authors:  L Vlachos; S Trakadas; A Gouliamos; S Lazarou; D Mourikis; R Ioannou; A Kalovidouris; C Papavasiliou
Journal:  Gastrointest Radiol       Date:  1990

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

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of tumors of the liver.

Authors:  Y Kinami; H Yokota; M Takata; S Takashima; I Yamamoto
Journal:  Gastroenterol Jpn       Date:  1988-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.