PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging enhanced with AMI-25 to depict and characterize hepatic tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients (41 men and 23 women, aged 24-65 years [mean, 55 years]) underwent 1-T MR imaging: 22 had metastatic disease; 10, hepatocellular carcinoma; seven, hemangioma; three, focal nodular hyperplasia; three, gallbladder adenocarcinoma; two, lymphoma; one, adenoma; and 16, no tumor. Pre- and postcontrast images (alone and in combination) were analyzed by three independent radiologists. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to compare tumor characterization. RESULTS: Signal intensity was decreased in all benign tumors but not in malignant tumors. The number of tumors depicted (nonenhanced images, 657 tumors; enhanced, 753; and combined, 760) was not statistically different. Receiver operating characteristic curves did not show improved characterization with AMI-25. CONCLUSION: AMI-25 does not improve depiction of hepatic tumors. Although characterization of hepatic tumors was not improved with AMI-25, uptake of AMI-25 seems specific for hepatic tumors at MR imaging.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging enhanced with AMI-25 to depict and characterize hepatic tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients (41 men and 23 women, aged 24-65 years [mean, 55 years]) underwent 1-T MR imaging: 22 had metastatic disease; 10, hepatocellular carcinoma; seven, hemangioma; three, focal nodular hyperplasia; three, gallbladder adenocarcinoma; two, lymphoma; one, adenoma; and 16, no tumor. Pre- and postcontrast images (alone and in combination) were analyzed by three independent radiologists. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to compare tumor characterization. RESULTS: Signal intensity was decreased in all benign tumors but not in malignant tumors. The number of tumors depicted (nonenhanced images, 657 tumors; enhanced, 753; and combined, 760) was not statistically different. Receiver operating characteristic curves did not show improved characterization with AMI-25. CONCLUSION:AMI-25 does not improve depiction of hepatic tumors. Although characterization of hepatic tumors was not improved with AMI-25, uptake of AMI-25 seems specific for hepatic tumors at MR imaging.
Authors: Carlo Bartolozzi; Francescamaria Donati; Dania Cioni; Carlo Procacci; Giovanni Morana; Antonio Chiesa; Luigi Grazioli; Giorgio Cittadini; Giuseppe Cittadini; Andrea Giovagnoni; Giovanni Gandini; Jochen Maass; Riccardo Lencioni Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-08-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kenneth Coenegrachts; Frank De Geeter; Leon ter Beek; Natascha Walgraeve; Shandra Bipat; Jaap Stoker; Hans Rigauts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315