Literature DB >> 9015063

Focal liver lesions: characterization with conventional spin-echo versus fast spin-echo T2-weighted MR imaging.

W Schima1, S Saini, J A Echeverri, P F Hahn, M Harisinghani, P R Mueller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare prospectively the diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted conventional spin-echo (SE) and fast SE magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for differentiation of benign (hemangiomas or cysts) from malignant (metastases or hepatocellular carcinoma) liver lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients with 55 confirmed liver lesions (20 hemangiomas, eight cysts, 22 metastases, four hepatocellular carcinomas, one malignant fibrous histiocytoma) underwent T2-weighted conventional SE (repetition time msec/echo time [TE] msec = 3,100/ 80,160) and fast SE (5,000-5,000/99-104 [effective TE]) MR imaging at 1.5 T. The images were evaluated quantitatively (lesion-liver signal intensity ratio and lesion T2 index [SIlesion TE80/SIlesion TE160, where SI = signal intensity] and qualitatively (blinded reading) by using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
RESULTS: Quantitatively, the T2 index (Az = .988) was more accurate than the signal intensity ratio at conventional SE (Az = .920) and fast SE (Az = .910) imaging (P < .05). Qualitatively, there was no statistically significant difference between the blinded reading of conventional SE (Az = .988) and fast SE (Az = .986) images in lesion characterization (benign vs malignant). There was a trend, however, toward superiority of conventional SE imaging for evaluation of "hypervascular" metastases (n = 9).
CONCLUSION: With the specific parameters used, conventional SE and fast SE images provide equal accuracy for characterization of focal liver lesions. In patients with hypervascular metastases, double-echo conventional SE images may be preferable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9015063     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.2.9015063

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


  6 in total

1.  Correcting partial volume effects in biexponential T2 estimation of small lesions.

Authors:  Chuan Huang; Jean-Philippe Galons; Christian G Graff; Eric W Clarkson; Ali Bilgin; Bobby Kalb; Diego R Martin; Maria I Altbach
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 2.  Liver masses: a clinical, radiologic, and pathologic perspective.

Authors:  Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Vishal Chandan; Lewis R Roberts
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  Imaging diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Ling-Hui Xu; San-Jun Cai; Guo-Xiang Cai; Wei-Jun Peng
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Non-invasive diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Pier Paolo Mainenti; Federica Romano; Laura Pizzuti; Sabrina Segreto; Giovanni Storto; Lorenzo Mannelli; Massimo Imbriaco; Luigi Camera; Simone Maurea
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-28

5.  MRI characterization of 124 CT-indeterminate focal hepatic lesions: evaluation of clinical utility.

Authors:  Khaled M Elsayes; John R Leyendecker; Christine O Menias; Erica P Oliveira; Vamsidhar R Narra; William C Chapman; Moataz H Hassanien; Mohamed S Elsharkawy; Jeffrey J Brown
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 6.  Liver metastases of colorectal cancer: US, CT or MR?

Authors:  Wolfgang Schima; Christiane Kulinna; Herbert Langenberger; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.909

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.