Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases.
Invest Radiol. 2011 Sep; 46(9):548-55.IR

Abstract

PURPOSE

: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) on a 3-T system and integrated contrast-enhanced F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CE-PET/CT) for the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

: The approval from the institutional review board was obtained, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. We retrospectively evaluated 135 metastases in 68 patients (37 men, 31 women; mean age: 68 years; age range: 37-82 years) who underwent both EOB-MRI and CE-PET/CT. A total of 103 metastases were confirmed during surgery and 32 were confirmed by imaging findings during follow-up. The images were independently reviewed by 2 observers. The diagnostic accuracies of EOB-MRI and CE-PET/CT were determined by calculating the areas under each reader-specific receiver operating characteristic curve (Az). Patient-based lesion sensitivity and specificity were compared using the McNemar test.

RESULTS

: The mean area under the Az on EOB-MRI versus CE-PET/CT was 0.94 versus 0.81 for all lesions (P < 0.001), 0.92 versus 0.60 for lesions ≤1 cm in size (P < 0.001), and 0.88 versus 0.96 for lesions >1 cm (P = 0.098), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive value on a patient basis were 100%, 71%, 97%, and 100% for EOB-MRI and 93%, 71%, 97%, and 57% for CE-PET/CT, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

: EOB-MRI using a 3-T system is more accurate than CE-PET/CT, especially for the detection of small (≤1.0 cm) lesions. Patient-based analysis revealed that EOB-MRI has a higher sensitivity and negative predictive value than CE-PET/CT.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Republic of Korea.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21577131

Citation

Seo, Hyo Jung, et al. "Gadoxetate Disodium-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography for the Detection of Colorectal Liver Metastases." Investigative Radiology, vol. 46, no. 9, 2011, pp. 548-55.
Seo HJ, Kim MJ, Lee JD, et al. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(9):548-55.
Seo, H. J., Kim, M. J., Lee, J. D., Chung, W. S., & Kim, Y. E. (2011). Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Investigative Radiology, 46(9), 548-55. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31821a2163
Seo HJ, et al. Gadoxetate Disodium-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography for the Detection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(9):548-55. PubMed PMID: 21577131.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. AU - Seo,Hyo Jung, AU - Kim,Myeong-Jin, AU - Lee,Jong Doo, AU - Chung,Woo-Suk, AU - Kim,Yeo-Eun, PY - 2011/5/18/entrez PY - 2011/5/18/pubmed PY - 2011/12/23/medline SP - 548 EP - 55 JF - Investigative radiology JO - Invest Radiol VL - 46 IS - 9 N2 - PURPOSE: : To compare the diagnostic accuracy of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) on a 3-T system and integrated contrast-enhanced F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CE-PET/CT) for the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: : The approval from the institutional review board was obtained, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. We retrospectively evaluated 135 metastases in 68 patients (37 men, 31 women; mean age: 68 years; age range: 37-82 years) who underwent both EOB-MRI and CE-PET/CT. A total of 103 metastases were confirmed during surgery and 32 were confirmed by imaging findings during follow-up. The images were independently reviewed by 2 observers. The diagnostic accuracies of EOB-MRI and CE-PET/CT were determined by calculating the areas under each reader-specific receiver operating characteristic curve (Az). Patient-based lesion sensitivity and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS: : The mean area under the Az on EOB-MRI versus CE-PET/CT was 0.94 versus 0.81 for all lesions (P < 0.001), 0.92 versus 0.60 for lesions ≤1 cm in size (P < 0.001), and 0.88 versus 0.96 for lesions >1 cm (P = 0.098), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive value on a patient basis were 100%, 71%, 97%, and 100% for EOB-MRI and 93%, 71%, 97%, and 57% for CE-PET/CT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: : EOB-MRI using a 3-T system is more accurate than CE-PET/CT, especially for the detection of small (≤1.0 cm) lesions. Patient-based analysis revealed that EOB-MRI has a higher sensitivity and negative predictive value than CE-PET/CT. SN - 1536-0210 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21577131/Gadoxetate_disodium_enhanced_magnetic_resonance_imaging_versus_contrast_enhanced_18F_fluorodeoxyglucose_positron_emission_tomography/computed_tomography_for_the_detection_of_colorectal_liver_metastases_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31821a2163 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -