Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2003
Comparison of MR and PET imaging for the evaluation of liver metastases.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Ming, Martin Diego R, Karabulut Nevzat, Frick Mathis P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of fluoro-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and dynamic-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in the diagnosis of liver metastatic lesions from colon and other sources.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with known or suspected metastatic lesions were scanned by both MRI and PET. Histopathology and/or clinical outcome, including cross-sectional imaging follow up, were used as a gold standard.
RESULTS: Of 30 patients, 16 were positive by pathology and/or clinical outcome and 14 were negative for liver metastases. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values on MRI were 85.7%, 100%, 100%, and 89%, respectively, compared to 71%, 93.7%, 90.9%, and 79% on FDG-PET. The difference between the two methods was not significant (X(2) = 0.2, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed no significant difference in detection of liver metastases using MRI or FDG-PET. However, MRI has advantages in spatial resolution and lesion characterization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with known or suspected metastatic lesions were scanned by both MRI and PET. Histopathology and/or clinical outcome, including cross-sectional imaging follow up, were used as a gold standard.
RESULTS: Of 30 patients, 16 were positive by pathology and/or clinical outcome and 14 were negative for liver metastases. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values on MRI were 85.7%, 100%, 100%, and 89%, respectively, compared to 71%, 93.7%, 90.9%, and 79% on FDG-PET. The difference between the two methods was not significant (X(2) = 0.2, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed no significant difference in detection of liver metastases using MRI or FDG-PET. However, MRI has advantages in spatial resolution and lesion characterization.