Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
Comparison of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced MRI and contrast-enhanced CT evaluation of liver tumors: a prospective study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kishi Yoji, Edo Hiromi, Mikoshi Ayako, Okano Kousuke, Tsunenari Takazumi, Einama Takahiro, Takao Mikiya, Okamoto Koichi, Kajiwara Yoshiki, Ueno Hideki, Ogata Sho, Matsukuma Susumu, Shinmoto Hiroshi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This prospective study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of hepatic lesions between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) and gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-EOB-MRI). We also examined the final diagnosis of equivocal lesions.
METHODS: In each patient undergoing hepatectomy for liver tumors, 2 radiologists (readers A and B) assessed CE-CT and Gd-EOB-MRI. Hepatic lesions were scored as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which corresponded to categorization as benign, probably benign, equivocal, probably malignant, or malignant, respectively. Those scored as 1/2 and 4/5 were defined as benign and malignant, respectively. The lesions left unresected were confirmed as benign when they remained unchanged for ≥ 1 year after hepatectomy. The false-positive rate was defined as the number of lesions finally confirmed as benign among those assessed as malignant preoperatively.
RESULTS: Among 105 enrolled patients (colorectal liver metastases, 72; hepatocellular carcinoma, 29; other, 4), 886 lesions were recognized on either CT or MRI preoperatively; another 26 lesions were identified only on intraoperative ultrasonography or pathologic examination. The sensitivity of malignant lesion detection was significantly higher for Gd-EOB-MRI than CE-CT for both reader A (90.3% vs. 68.3%; P < 0.001) and reader B (88.1% vs. 70.2%; P < 0.001). The false-positive rate with CE-CT and Gd-EOB-MRI was 2.3% and 3.7%, respectively, for reader A (P = 0.580), and 0.5% and 4.2%, respectively, for reader B (P = 0.033). There were 142 lesions judged as equivocal in at least one of the imaging studies by either reader. Sixty-eight lesions (49%) were recognized as malignant by any of the alternative assessments; among these, 61were confirmed as malignant.
CONCLUSION: Gd-EOB-MRI was superior to CE-CT for detecting liver lesions. The false-positive rate was low for both modalities. Equivocal lesions were encountered frequently, but routine use of alternate modalities and evaluation by 2 or more radiologists could enhance the accuracy of diagnosis.
METHODS: In each patient undergoing hepatectomy for liver tumors, 2 radiologists (readers A and B) assessed CE-CT and Gd-EOB-MRI. Hepatic lesions were scored as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, which corresponded to categorization as benign, probably benign, equivocal, probably malignant, or malignant, respectively. Those scored as 1/2 and 4/5 were defined as benign and malignant, respectively. The lesions left unresected were confirmed as benign when they remained unchanged for ≥ 1 year after hepatectomy. The false-positive rate was defined as the number of lesions finally confirmed as benign among those assessed as malignant preoperatively.
RESULTS: Among 105 enrolled patients (colorectal liver metastases, 72; hepatocellular carcinoma, 29; other, 4), 886 lesions were recognized on either CT or MRI preoperatively; another 26 lesions were identified only on intraoperative ultrasonography or pathologic examination. The sensitivity of malignant lesion detection was significantly higher for Gd-EOB-MRI than CE-CT for both reader A (90.3% vs. 68.3%; P < 0.001) and reader B (88.1% vs. 70.2%; P < 0.001). The false-positive rate with CE-CT and Gd-EOB-MRI was 2.3% and 3.7%, respectively, for reader A (P = 0.580), and 0.5% and 4.2%, respectively, for reader B (P = 0.033). There were 142 lesions judged as equivocal in at least one of the imaging studies by either reader. Sixty-eight lesions (49%) were recognized as malignant by any of the alternative assessments; among these, 61were confirmed as malignant.
CONCLUSION: Gd-EOB-MRI was superior to CE-CT for detecting liver lesions. The false-positive rate was low for both modalities. Equivocal lesions were encountered frequently, but routine use of alternate modalities and evaluation by 2 or more radiologists could enhance the accuracy of diagnosis.