4.6 Article

Comparison of Multidetector CT and Gadobutrol-Enhanced MR Imaging for Evaluation of Small, Solid Pancreatic Lesions

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 509-521

出版社

KOREAN RADIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.509

关键词

Pancreas; CT; MRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and MRI for lesion conspicuity, as well as the detection and characterization of small solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Materials and Methods: 193 patients with small SPLs (<3 cm) and 52 patients with normal pancreas who underwent both multiphasic MDCT and gadobutrol-enhanced MRI were included in our study. Two radiologists blinded to the pathologic diagnoses independently reviewed those images, and determined the detection of SPL per se and SPL in consideration of secondary features, the lesion conspicuity, the probability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the most likely specific diagnosis. Results: The sensitivity of MRI for detection of SPL per se was significantly higher than that of CT in both reviewers: 92.7% (179/193) and 97.9% (189/193), respectively, for reviewer 1 (p = 0.031) and 90.7% (175/193) and 99.5% (192/193), respectively, for reviewer 2 (p < 0.001). In addition, MRI provided better lesion conspicuity than MDCT for both reviewers (p < 0.001). However, CT and MRI did not show significant difference in sensitivity for detection of SPL in consideration of secondary features, specificity for SPL detection, and differentiation of PDAC vs. non-PDAC (p > 0.05). The accuracies of CT and MRI for making a specific diagnosis were as follows: 85.7% (210/245) vs. 86.9% (213/245), respectively, for reviewer 1 (p = 0.736), and 91.8% (225/245) vs. 93.5% (229/245), respectively, for reviewer 2 (p = 0.454). Conclusion: MRI showed better lesion conspicuity than MDCT, but did not show significantly different diagnostic performance compared with MDCT for detecting and characterizing small SPLs.

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

4.6
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