Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 12/2010

01-12-2010 | Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Characterisation of small hypoattenuating hepatic lesions in multi-detector CT (MDCT) in patients with underlying extrahepatic malignancy: added value of contrast-enhanced MR images

Authors: Song-Ee Baek, Mi-Suk Park, Hye Sook Hong, Jin Young Choi, Yong Eun Chung, Joon Seok Lim, Myeong-Jin Kim, Ki Whang Kim

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To retrospectively assess the value of adding gadolinium-enhanced dynamic imaging to standard ununenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for characterising hypoattenuating hepatic lesions that are too small to characterise with multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT).

Methods

Informed consent was waved, and institutional review board approval was obtained. Three hundred and forty-six small (≤2 cm) lesions (63 metastatic, 283 benign) in 183 patients with underlying carcinoma who underwent hepatic MRI after CT were retrospectively analysed. Two radiologists independently reviewed images and diagnoses were graded on an ordinal scale from 1 (definitely benign) to 5 (definitely malignant). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were also determined.

Results

The areas under the curve of the ununenhanced images alone and with dynamic images were 0.837 and 0.850 for reader 1 (p = 0.616) and 0.771 and 0.783 for reader 2 (p = 0.700). Descriptive statistical values demonstrated sensitivities of 76% and 80%, specificities of 93% and 95%, PPVs of 69% and 79%, NPVs of 95% and 95% and accuracies of 90% and 92%, respectively.

Conclusion

The value of adding three-phase contrast-enhanced MRI to unenhanced imaging did not reach statistical significance for characterising small hypoattenuating hepatic lesions on MDCT.
Literature
1.
Schwartz LH, Gandras EJ, Colangelo SM, Ercolani MC, Panicek DM (1999) Prevalence and importance of small hepatic lesions found at CT in patients with cancer. Radiology 210:71–74PubMed
2.
Brick SH, Hill MC, Lande IM (1987) The mistaken or indeterminate CT diagnosis of hepatic metastases: the value of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 148:723–726PubMed
3.
Jones EC, Chezmar JL, Nelson RC, Bernardino ME (1992) The frequency and significance of small (less than or equal to 15 mm) hepatic lesions detected by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158:535–539PubMed
4.
Khalil HI, Patterson SA, Panicek DM (2005) Hepatic lesions deemed too small to characterize at CT: prevalence and importance in women with breast cancer. Radiology 235:872–878CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jang HJ, Lim HK, Lee WJ, Lee SJ, Yun JY, Choi D (2002) Small hypoattenuating lesions in the liver on single-phase helical CT in preoperative patients with gastric and colorectal cancer: prevalence, significance, and differentiating features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 26:718–724CrossRefPubMed
6.
Holalkere NS, Sahani DV, Blake MA, Halpern EF, Hahn PF, Mueller PR (2006) Characterization of small liver lesions: added role of MR after MDCT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:591–596CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kanematsu M, Semelka R, Matsuo M et al (2002) Gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of the liver: optimizing imaging delay for hepatic arterial and portal venous phases? A prospective randomized study in patients with chronic liver damage. Radiology 225:407–415
8.
Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76:378–382CrossRef
9.
10.
Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Goshima S et al (2006) Imaging liver metastases: review and update. Eur J Radiol 58:217–228CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, New York
12.
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed
13.
Van Beers B, Demeure R, Pringot J et al (1990) Dynamic spin-echo imaging with Gd-DTPA: value in the differentiation of hepatic tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 154:515–519PubMed
14.
Whitney WS, Herfkens RJ, Jeffrey RB et al (1993) Dynamic breath-hold multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled MR imaging with gadolinium enhancement for differentiating hepatic hemangiomas from malignancies at 1.5 T. Radiology 189:863–870PubMed
15.
Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Kroeker MA et al (1992) Focal liver disease: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and T2-weighted fat-suppressed, FLASH, and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 184:687–694PubMed
16.
Hamm B, Thoeni RF, Gould RG et al (1994) Focal liver lesions: characterization with nonenhanced and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 190:417–423PubMed
17.
Yoshida H, Itai Y, Ohtomo K, Kokubo T, Minami M, Yashiro N (1989) Small hepatocellular carcinoma and cavernous hemangioma: differentiation with dynamic FLASH MR imaging with Gd-DTPA. Radiology 171:339–342PubMed
18.
Yamashita Y, Hatanaka Y, Yamamoto H et al (1994) Differential diagnosis of focal liver lesions: role of spin-echo and contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 193:59–65PubMed
19.
McFarland EG, Mayo-Smith WW, Saini S, Hahn PF, Goldberg MA, Lee MJ (1994) Hepatic hemangiomas and malignant tumors: improved differentiation with heavily T2-weighted conventional spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 193:43–47PubMed
20.
Bennett GL, Petersein A, Mayo-Smith WW, Hahn PF, Schima W, Saini S (2000) Addition of gadolinium chelates to heavily T2-weighted MR imaging: limited role in differentiating hepatic hemangiomas from metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:477–485PubMed
21.
Goldberg MA, Hahn PF, Saini S et al (1993) Value of T1 and T2 relaxation times from echoplanar MR imaging in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160:1011–1017PubMed
22.
Ito K, Mitchell D, Outwater E, Szklaruk J, Sadek A (1997) Hepatic lesions: discrimination of nonsolid, benign lesions from solid, malignant lesions with heavily T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 204:729–737PubMed
23.
Ueda K, Matsui O, Nobata K, Takashima T (1996) Mucinous carcinoma of the liver mimicking cavernous hemangioma on pre- and postcontrast MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:468–469PubMed
24.
Tang Y, Yamashita Y, Ogata I et al (1999) Metastatic liver tumor from cystic ovarian carcinomas: CT and MRI appearance. Radiat Med 17:265–270PubMed
25.
Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Goshima S et al (2006) Imaging liver metastases: review and update. Eur J Radiol 58:217–228CrossRefPubMed
26.
Outwater E, Tomaszewski JE, Daly JM, Kressel HY (1991) Hepatic colorectal metastases: correlation of MR imaging and pathologic appearance. Radiology 180:327–332PubMed
27.
Quillin SP, Atilla S, Brown JJ, Borrello JA, Yu CY, Pilgram TK (1997) Characterization of focal hepatic masses by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: findings in 311 lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 15:275–285CrossRefPubMed
28.
Danet IM, Semelka RC, Leonardou P et al (2003) Spectrum of MRI appearances of untreated metastases of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:809–817PubMed
29.
Low R, Gurney J (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in the oncology patient: value of breathhold DWI compared to unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:848–858CrossRefPubMed
30.
Koh D, Brown G, Riddell A et al (2008) Detection of colorectal hepatic metastases using MnDPDP MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) alone and in combination. Eur Radiol 18:903–910CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Characterisation of small hypoattenuating hepatic lesions in multi-detector CT (MDCT) in patients with underlying extrahepatic malignancy: added value of contrast-enhanced MR images
Authors
Song-Ee Baek
Mi-Suk Park
Hye Sook Hong
Jin Young Choi
Yong Eun Chung
Joon Seok Lim
Myeong-Jin Kim
Ki Whang Kim
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 12/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1872-x

Other articles of this Issue 12/2010

European Radiology 12/2010 Go to the issue

Interventional

Transvenous embolization of cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistulas using detachable coils and Glubran 2 acrylic glue via the inferior petrosal sinus approach

Cardiac

Toward cardiovascular MRI at 7 T: clinical needs, technical solutions and research promises

Oncology

Early response assessment in patients with multiple myeloma during anti-angiogenic therapy using arterial spin labelling: first clinical results

Neuro

Hyperintense acute reperfusion marker on FLAIR is not associated with early haemorrhagic transformation in the elderly

Head and Neck

How safe is the use of ultrasound-guided cutting needle biopsy in the head and neck?

Computed Tomography

Dual energy CT (DECT) of the liver: conventional versus virtual unenhanced images