Diagnosis of liver metastases: value of diffusion-weighted MRI compared with gadolinium-enhanced MRI
Objective The full diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in the evaluation of liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using extracellular gadolinium chelates, with the reference stan...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2010-06, Vol.20 (6), p.1431-1441 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1441 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1431 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Hardie, Andrew D. Naik, Mohit Hecht, Elizabeth M. Chandarana, Hersh Mannelli, Lorenzo Babb, James S. Taouli, Bachir |
| description | Objective
The full diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in the evaluation of liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using extracellular gadolinium chelates, with the reference standard established by consensus interpretation of confirmatory imaging and histopathologic data.
Methods
MR examinations of 51 patients with extrahepatic malignancies were retrospectively reviewed by two independent observers who assessed DW-MRI and CE-MRI for detection of liver metastases.
Results
By reference standard, 93 liver lesions (49 metastases and 44 benign lesions) were identified in 27 patients, 11 patients had no liver lesions, and 13 patients had innumerable metastatic and/or benign lesions. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods for either observer for the diagnosis of metastatic lesions per patient. For per-lesion analysis, sensitivity of DW-MRI was equivalent to CE-MRI for observer 1 (67.3% vs. 63.3%,
p
= 0.67), but lower for observer 2 (65.3% vs. 83.7%,
p
= 0.007). By pooling data from both observers, the sensitivity of DW-MRI was 66.3% (65/98) and 73.5% (72/98) for CE-MRI, with no significant difference (
p
= 0.171).
Conclusion
DW-MRI is a reasonable alternative to CE-MRI for the detection of liver metastases. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-009-1695-9 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733934422</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2022486501</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-fb350732ca356a10e488a95ea0d9b6e2044a942b328bcfb97a681addc527a9863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kV1r1UAQhhdR7LH6A3ojwZterc5-JNntXWmrFiqC6PUySSbnbEmyp7tJi__ePaS1IAgDwzDPvDPMy9iJgI8CoP6UAJQCDmC5qGzJ7Qu2EVpJLsDol2wDVhleW6uP2JuUbiGDQtev2ZEEoY0sxYZ1lx63U0g-FaEvBn9PsRhpxpSD0llxj8NCh1bn-35JPkz8gfx2N1NXfPtxXbRh3GPMxYOfd8UWuzD4yS8jp2mHU7tSb9mrHodE7x7zMfv1-ernxVd-8_3L9cX5DW9VDTPvG1VCrWSLqqxQAGlj0JaE0NmmIglao9WyUdI0bd_YGisjsOvaUtZoTaWO2emqu4_hbqE0u9GnloYBJwpLcrVSVmktZSY__EPehiVO-TgnhbFgrCozJFaojSGlSL3bRz9i_O0EuIMBbjXA5b-6gwHO5pn3j8JLM1L3d-Lp4xmQK5Bya9pSfN78f9U_PzaQQA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218908935</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnosis of liver metastases: value of diffusion-weighted MRI compared with gadolinium-enhanced MRI</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Hardie, Andrew D. ; Naik, Mohit ; Hecht, Elizabeth M. ; Chandarana, Hersh ; Mannelli, Lorenzo ; Babb, James S. ; Taouli, Bachir</creator><creatorcontrib>Hardie, Andrew D. ; Naik, Mohit ; Hecht, Elizabeth M. ; Chandarana, Hersh ; Mannelli, Lorenzo ; Babb, James S. ; Taouli, Bachir</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
The full diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in the evaluation of liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using extracellular gadolinium chelates, with the reference standard established by consensus interpretation of confirmatory imaging and histopathologic data.
Methods
MR examinations of 51 patients with extrahepatic malignancies were retrospectively reviewed by two independent observers who assessed DW-MRI and CE-MRI for detection of liver metastases.
Results
By reference standard, 93 liver lesions (49 metastases and 44 benign lesions) were identified in 27 patients, 11 patients had no liver lesions, and 13 patients had innumerable metastatic and/or benign lesions. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods for either observer for the diagnosis of metastatic lesions per patient. For per-lesion analysis, sensitivity of DW-MRI was equivalent to CE-MRI for observer 1 (67.3% vs. 63.3%,
p
= 0.67), but lower for observer 2 (65.3% vs. 83.7%,
p
= 0.007). By pooling data from both observers, the sensitivity of DW-MRI was 66.3% (65/98) and 73.5% (72/98) for CE-MRI, with no significant difference (
p
= 0.171).
Conclusion
DW-MRI is a reasonable alternative to CE-MRI for the detection of liver metastases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1695-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20148251</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Carcinoma - secondary ; Contrast Media ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Female ; Gadolinium DTPA ; Hepatobiliary-Pancreas ; Humans ; Image Enhancement - methods ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neuroradiology ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2010-06, Vol.20 (6), p.1431-1441</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-fb350732ca356a10e488a95ea0d9b6e2044a942b328bcfb97a681addc527a9863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-fb350732ca356a10e488a95ea0d9b6e2044a942b328bcfb97a681addc527a9863</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-009-1695-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-009-1695-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20148251$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hardie, Andrew D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naik, Mohit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hecht, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandarana, Hersh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannelli, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babb, James S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taouli, Bachir</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnosis of liver metastases: value of diffusion-weighted MRI compared with gadolinium-enhanced MRI</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective
The full diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in the evaluation of liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using extracellular gadolinium chelates, with the reference standard established by consensus interpretation of confirmatory imaging and histopathologic data.
Methods
MR examinations of 51 patients with extrahepatic malignancies were retrospectively reviewed by two independent observers who assessed DW-MRI and CE-MRI for detection of liver metastases.
Results
By reference standard, 93 liver lesions (49 metastases and 44 benign lesions) were identified in 27 patients, 11 patients had no liver lesions, and 13 patients had innumerable metastatic and/or benign lesions. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods for either observer for the diagnosis of metastatic lesions per patient. For per-lesion analysis, sensitivity of DW-MRI was equivalent to CE-MRI for observer 1 (67.3% vs. 63.3%,
p
= 0.67), but lower for observer 2 (65.3% vs. 83.7%,
p
= 0.007). By pooling data from both observers, the sensitivity of DW-MRI was 66.3% (65/98) and 73.5% (72/98) for CE-MRI, with no significant difference (
p
= 0.171).
Conclusion
DW-MRI is a reasonable alternative to CE-MRI for the detection of liver metastases.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Carcinoma - secondary</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gadolinium DTPA</subject><subject>Hepatobiliary-Pancreas</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kV1r1UAQhhdR7LH6A3ojwZterc5-JNntXWmrFiqC6PUySSbnbEmyp7tJi__ePaS1IAgDwzDPvDPMy9iJgI8CoP6UAJQCDmC5qGzJ7Qu2EVpJLsDol2wDVhleW6uP2JuUbiGDQtev2ZEEoY0sxYZ1lx63U0g-FaEvBn9PsRhpxpSD0llxj8NCh1bn-35JPkz8gfx2N1NXfPtxXbRh3GPMxYOfd8UWuzD4yS8jp2mHU7tSb9mrHodE7x7zMfv1-ernxVd-8_3L9cX5DW9VDTPvG1VCrWSLqqxQAGlj0JaE0NmmIglao9WyUdI0bd_YGisjsOvaUtZoTaWO2emqu4_hbqE0u9GnloYBJwpLcrVSVmktZSY__EPehiVO-TgnhbFgrCozJFaojSGlSL3bRz9i_O0EuIMBbjXA5b-6gwHO5pn3j8JLM1L3d-Lp4xmQK5Bya9pSfN78f9U_PzaQQA</recordid><startdate>20100601</startdate><enddate>20100601</enddate><creator>Hardie, Andrew D.</creator><creator>Naik, Mohit</creator><creator>Hecht, Elizabeth M.</creator><creator>Chandarana, Hersh</creator><creator>Mannelli, Lorenzo</creator><creator>Babb, James S.</creator><creator>Taouli, Bachir</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100601</creationdate><title>Diagnosis of liver metastases: value of diffusion-weighted MRI compared with gadolinium-enhanced MRI</title><author>Hardie, Andrew D. ; Naik, Mohit ; Hecht, Elizabeth M. ; Chandarana, Hersh ; Mannelli, Lorenzo ; Babb, James S. ; Taouli, Bachir</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-fb350732ca356a10e488a95ea0d9b6e2044a942b328bcfb97a681addc527a9863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Carcinoma - secondary</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gadolinium DTPA</topic><topic>Hepatobiliary-Pancreas</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hardie, Andrew D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naik, Mohit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hecht, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandarana, Hersh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannelli, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babb, James S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taouli, Bachir</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hardie, Andrew D.</au><au>Naik, Mohit</au><au>Hecht, Elizabeth M.</au><au>Chandarana, Hersh</au><au>Mannelli, Lorenzo</au><au>Babb, James S.</au><au>Taouli, Bachir</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnosis of liver metastases: value of diffusion-weighted MRI compared with gadolinium-enhanced MRI</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2010-06-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1431</spage><epage>1441</epage><pages>1431-1441</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objective
The full diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in the evaluation of liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using extracellular gadolinium chelates, with the reference standard established by consensus interpretation of confirmatory imaging and histopathologic data.
Methods
MR examinations of 51 patients with extrahepatic malignancies were retrospectively reviewed by two independent observers who assessed DW-MRI and CE-MRI for detection of liver metastases.
Results
By reference standard, 93 liver lesions (49 metastases and 44 benign lesions) were identified in 27 patients, 11 patients had no liver lesions, and 13 patients had innumerable metastatic and/or benign lesions. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods for either observer for the diagnosis of metastatic lesions per patient. For per-lesion analysis, sensitivity of DW-MRI was equivalent to CE-MRI for observer 1 (67.3% vs. 63.3%,
p
= 0.67), but lower for observer 2 (65.3% vs. 83.7%,
p
= 0.007). By pooling data from both observers, the sensitivity of DW-MRI was 66.3% (65/98) and 73.5% (72/98) for CE-MRI, with no significant difference (
p
= 0.171).
Conclusion
DW-MRI is a reasonable alternative to CE-MRI for the detection of liver metastases.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20148251</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-009-1695-9</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2010-06, Vol.20 (6), p.1431-1441 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733934422 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Carcinoma - secondary Contrast Media Diagnostic Radiology Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Female Gadolinium DTPA Hepatobiliary-Pancreas Humans Image Enhancement - methods Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neuroradiology Radiology Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasound |
| title | Diagnosis of liver metastases: value of diffusion-weighted MRI compared with gadolinium-enhanced MRI |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T12%3A12%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnosis%20of%20liver%20metastases:%20value%20of%20diffusion-weighted%20MRI%20compared%20with%20gadolinium-enhanced%20MRI&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Hardie,%20Andrew%20D.&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1431&rft.epage=1441&rft.pages=1431-1441&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-009-1695-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2022486501%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218908935&rft_id=info:pmid/20148251&rfr_iscdi=true |