4.4 Article

Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI compared with CT during angiography in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 748-754

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.10.028

关键词

Liver; Hepatocellular carcinoma; CT angiography; MRI; Gadoxetic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the pretherapeutic detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with the combination of computed tomography (CT) arterial portography and CT hepatic arteriography (CTAP/CTHA). Materials and Methods: A total of 54 consecutive patients with 87 nodular HCCs were retrospectively analyzed. All HCC nodules were confirmed pathologically. Three blinded readers independently reviewed 432 hepatic segments, including 78 segments with 87 HCCs. Each reader read two sets of images: Set 1, CTAP/CTHA; Set 2, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI including a gradient dual-echo sequence and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The ROC method was used to analyze the results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and sensitivity according to tumor size were evaluated. Results: For each reader, the area under the curve was significantly higher for Set 2 than for Set 1. The mean area under the curve was also significantly greater for Set 2 than for Set 1 (area under the curve, 0.98 vs. 0.93; P=.0009). The sensitivity was significantly higher for Set 2 than for Set 1 for all three readers (P=.012, .013 and .039, respectively). The difference in the specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive values of the two modalities for each reader was not significant (P>.05). Conclusion: Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI including a gradient dual-echo sequence and DWI is recommended for the pre-therapeutic evaluation of patients with HCC. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据