HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hosch, W. P. Articles by Hansmann, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hosch, W. P. Articles by Hansmann, J. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Comparison of CT During Arterial Portography and MR During Arterial Portography in the Detection of Liver Metastases

¹ Department of Radiology, University Clinic Heidelberg, INF 110, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
² Department of Surgery, University Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
³ Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelburg, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. This study compared MR during arterial portography (MRAP) with CT during arterial portography (CTAP) with regard to the detection and differentiation of liver metastases before surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifteen patients with liver metastases were enrolled before surgery according to the guidelines of our institutional review board and good clinical practice. After mesentericography, unenhanced scans (Volume Zoom) were performed initially. For CTAP, the contrast medium was injected through the superior mesenteric artery. Images were acquired in portal and delayed enhancement. The MR protocol (1.5 T; Magnetom Symphony) started with T1-weighted fast low-angle shot (FLASH) T2-weighted turbo spin echo (TSE). MRAP followed with gadolinium-enhanced dynamic T1-weighted 3D FLASH. Delayed-phase T1-weighted 2D FLASH axial images were performed 2 min after IV injection of the contrast medium. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of CTAP and MRAP was performed by three blinded radiologists regarding the number of lesions and their size, localization, and differential diagnosis.

RESULTS. The overall sensitivity in detecting liver metastases was 97% with MRAP and 93% with CTAP (p > 0.05, not significant [n.s.]). The specificity was calculated to be 97% for MRAP and 82% for CTAP (p < 0.0001, statistically significant [s.s.]). The differences in sensitivity were more accentuated if only lesions 10 mm or smaller were considered (95% vs 88%, p > 0.05, n.s.), for which the respective specificities were 95% and 80% (p < 0.0014, s.s.). Improvements in sensitivity and specificity were associated with a higher lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (59.4 ± 51.0 for MRAP vs 10.4 ± 7.3 for CTAP) and resulted in higher diagnostic confidence in the differential diagnosis of liver lesions (p < 0.001, s.s.) and better interobserver agreement (median kappa value, 0.88 vs 0.63).

CONCLUSION. MRAP proved to be a reliable method in the preoperative detection of small liver metastases in particular, with a higher sensitivity and specificity than CTAP. If organizational difficulties of MRAP can be overcome, MRAP could be considered instead of CTAP in the preoperative invasive evaluation of metastatic liver disease.

Keywords: arterial portography • CT • liver • MRI • oncologic imaging

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?