Focal liver disease: Comparison of breath-hold T1-weighted MP-GRE MR imaging and contrast-enhanced CT - Lesion detection, localization, and characterization

Radiology

Volumn 200, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 465-473

  De Lange, Eduard E ^a   Mugler III, John P ^a   Gay, Spencer B ^a   DeAngelis, Gia A ^a   Berr, Stuart S ^a   Harris, Eugene K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography (CT), comparative studies; Liver, CT; Liver, MR; Magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies; Magnetic resonance (MR), rapid imaging; Magnetic resonance (MR), technology; Magnetic resonance (MR), tissue characterization

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREATH HOLDING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER DISEASE; LIVER METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0029891165     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.200.2.8685343     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Haase A, Matthaei D, Bartkowski R. Inversion recovery snapshot FLASH MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989; 13: 1036-1040.
2. 2 and chemical-shift imaging. Magn Reson Med 1990; 13:77-89.
3. de Lange EE, Mugler JP, Bertolina JA, Gay SB, Janus CL, Brookeman JR. Magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo (MP-RAGE) MR imaging of the liver: comparison with spin echo imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1991; 9:469-476.
4. Holsinger-Bampton AE, Riederer SJ, Campeau NG, Ehman RL, Johnson CD. T1-weighted snapshot gradient-echo MR imaging of the abdomen. Radiology 1991; 181:25-32.
5. de Lange EE, Mugler JP, Bosworth JE, et al. MR imaging of the liver: breath-hold T1-weighted MP-GRE compared with conven-tional T2-weighted SE imaging - lesion detection, localization, and characterization. Radiology 1994; 190:727-736.
6. de Lange EE, Mugler JP, Bertolina J, Brookeman JR. Selective versus nonselective preparation pulses in two-dimensional MP-RAGE MR imaging of the liver. JMRI 1992; 2:355-358.
7. Ferruci JT. Liver tumor imaging: current concepts. AJR 1990; 155:473-484.
8. Karhunen PJ. Benign hepatic tumours and like conditions in men. J Clin Pathol 1986; 140:695-700.
9. Rummeny EJ, Wernecke K, Saini S, et al. Comparison between high-field-strength MR imaging and CT for screening of hepatic metastases: a receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 1992; 182:879-886.
10. Chezmar JL, Rumancik WM, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Nelson RC, Bernardino ME. Liver and abdominal screening in patients with cancer: CT versus MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 168:43-47.
11. Rummeny E, Saini S, Wernecke K, et al. Comparison between MR imaging and CT in screening the liver for metastases. Radiology 1989; 173:174.
12. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Kroeker MA, Greenberg HM, Simm FC, Minuk GY. Focal liver disease: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and T2-weighted fat-suppressed, FLASH, and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 1992; 184:687-694.
13. Vassilliades VG, Foley WD, Alarcon J, et al. Hepatic metastases: CT versus MR imaging at 1.5 T. Gastrointest Radiol 1991; 16:159-163.
14. Fretz CJ, Stark DD, Metz CE, et al. Detection of hepatic metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced CT, unenhanced MR imaging, and iron oxide-enhanced MR imaging. AJR 1990; 155:763-770.
15. Vlachos L, Trakadas S, Gouliamos A, et al. Comparative study between ultrasound, computed tomography, intraarterial digital subtraction angiography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of tumor of the liver. Gastrointest Radiol 1990; 15:102-106.
16. Glazer GM, Aisen AM, Francis IR, Gross BH, Gyves JW, Ensminger WD. Evaluation of focal masses: a comparative study of MRI and CT. Gastrointest Radiol 1986; 11: 263-268.
17. Heiken JP, Lee JKT, Glazer HS, Ling D. Hepatic metastasis studied with MR and CT. Radiology 1985; 156:423-427.
18. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Ascher SM, et al. Solitary hepatic metastasis: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MR imaging with fat-suppressed T2-weighted, breath-hold T1-weighted FLASH, and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced FLASH sequences. JMRI 1994; 4:319-323.
19. Wernecke K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G, et al. Detection of hepatic masses in patients with carcinoma: comparative sensitivities of sonography, CT and MR imaging. AJR 1991; 157:731-740.
20. Barakos JA, Goldberg HI, Brown JJ, Gilbert TJ. Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions. Gastrointest Radiol 1990; 15:93-101.
21. Zeman RK, Dritschilo A, Silverman PM, et al. Dynamic CT vs. 0.5T MR imaging in the detection of surgically proven hepatic metastases. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1988; 13:637-644.
22. Moss AA, Goldberg HI, Stark DD, et al. Hepatic tumors: magnetic resonance and CT appearance. Radiology 1984; 150:141-147.
23. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Steinberg HV, et al. Focal hepatic lesions: detection by dynamic and delayed computed tomography versus short TE/TR spin-echo and fast field echo magnetic resonance imaging. Gastrointest Radiol 1988; 13:115-122.
24. Stark DD, Wittenberg J, Butch RJ, et al. MR detection of hepatic metastases: a randomized, controlled comparison with CT. Radiology 1987; 165:399-406.
25. Paulson EK, Baker ME, Hilleren DJ, et al. CT arterial portography: causes of technical failure and variable liver enhancement. AJR 1992; 159:745-749.
26. Freeny PC, Marks WM. Hepatic perfusion abnormalities during CT angiography: detection and interpretation. Radiology 1986; 159:685-691.
27. Dolenz KR, Li KCP, Hawkins IF, Miles SG, Ros PR, Bland KI. Dynamic CT of hepatic masses using interarterial enhancement: advantages and pitfalls. Gastrointest Radiol 1990; 15:241-244.
28. Heiken JP, Weyman PJ, Lee JKT, et al. Detection of focal hepatic masses: prospective evaluation with CT, delayed CT, CT during arterial portography, and MR imaging. Radiology 1989; 171:47-51.
29. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Sugarbaker PH, Bernardino ME. Hepatic tumors: comparison of CT during arterial portography, delayed CT, and MR imaging for preoperative evaluation. Radiology 1989; 172:27-34.
30. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Sugarbaker PH, Murray DR, Bernardino ME. Preoperative localization of focal liver lesions to specific liver segments: utility of CT during arterial portography. Radiology 1990; 176:89-94.
31. Soyer P, Levesque M, Caudron C, Elias D, Zeitoun G, Roche A. MRI of liver metastases from colorectal cancer vs. CT during arterial portography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17:67-74.
32. Urban BA, Fishman EK, Kuhlman JE, Kawashima A, Hennessey JG, Siegelman SS. Detection of focal hepatic lesions with spiral CT: comparison of 4- and 8-mm interscan spacing. AJR 1993; 160:783-785.
33. Bluemke DA, Fishman EK. Spiral CT of the liver. AJR 1993; 160:787-792.
34. Perkerson RB, Erwin BC, Baumgartner BR, et al. CT densities in delayed iodine hepatic scanning. Radiology 1985; 155:445-446.
35. Walkey MM. Dynamic hepatic CT: how many years will it take 'til we learn? Radiology 1991; 181:17-24.
36. Cox IH, Foley WD, Hoffman RG. Right window for dynamic hepatic CT. Radiology 1991; 181:18-21.
37. Foley WD. Dynamic hepatic CT. Radiology 1989; 170:617-622.
38. Berland LL, Lee JY. Comparison of contrast media injection rates and volumes for dynamic hepatic incremental computed tomography. Invest Radiol 1988; 23:918-922.
39. Chambers TP, Baron RL, Lush RM, Dodd GD, Miller WJ, Confer SR. Hepatic enhancement: a method to demonstrate reproducibility. Radiology 1993; 188:627-631.
40. Baron RL. Understanding and optimizing use of contrast material for CT of the liver. AJR 1994; 163:323-331.
41. Heiken JP, Briale JA, McClennan BL, Sagel SS, Forman HP, DiCroce J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT of the liver: Comparison of contrast medium injection rates and uniphasic and biphasic injection protocols. Radiology 1993; 187:327-331.
42. Nelson RC, Moyers JH, Chezmar JL, et al. Hepatic dynamic sequential CT: section enhancement profiles with a bolus of ionic and nonionic contrast agents. Radiology 1991; 178:499-502.
43. Paushter DM, Zeman RK, Scheibler ML, Choyke PL, Jaffe MH, Clark LR. CT evaluation of suspected hepatic metastases: comparison of techniques for IV contrast enhancement. AJR 1989; 152:267-271.
44. Moss AA, Schrump LJ, Schnyder P, Korobkin M, Shimshak RR. Computed tomography of focal hepatic lesions: a blind clinical evaluation of the effect of contrast enhancement. Radiology 1979; 131:427-430.
45. Small WC, Nelson RC, Bernardino ME, Brummer LT. Contrast-enhanced spiral CT of the liver: Effect of different amounts and injection rates of contrast material on early contrast enhancement. AJR 1994; 163: 87-92.
46. Low RN, Francis IR, Sigeti JS, Foo TKF. Abdominal MR imaging: comparison of T2-weighted fast and conventional spinecho, and contrast-enhanced fast multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled imaging. Radiology 1993; 186:803-811.
47. Whitney WS, Herfkens RJ, Jeffrey RB, et al. Dynamic breath-hold multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled MR imaging with gadolinium enhancement for differentiating hepatic hemangiomas from malignancies at 1.5 T. Radiology 1993; 189:863-870.
48. Saini S. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 1992; 182:12-14.
49. Reinig JW. Differentiation of hepatic lesions with MR imaging: the last word? Radiology 1991; 179:601-602.
50. Li KC, Glazer GM, Quint LE, et al. Distinction of hepatic cavernous hemangioma from hepatic metastases with MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 169:409-415.
51. Stark DD, Felder RC, Wittenberg J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of cavernous hemangioma of the liver: tissue-specific characterization. AJR 1985; 145:213-222.
52. Wittenberg J, Stark DD, Forman BH, et al. Differentiation of hepatic metastases from hepatic hemangiomas and cysts by using MR imaging. AJR 1988; 151:79-84.
53. Lombardo DM, Baker ME, Spritzer CE, Blinder R, Meyers W, Herfkens RJ. Hepatic hemangiomas vs metastases: MR differentiation at 1.5 T. AJR 1990; 155:55-59.
54. Brown JJ, Lee JM, Lee JKT, Van Lom KJ, Malchow SC. Focal hepatic lesions: differentiation with MR imaging at 0.5 T. Radiology 1991; 179:675-679.
55. McFarland EG, Mayo-Smith W, Saini S, Hahn PF, Goldberg MA, Lee MJ. Hepatic hemangiomas and malignant tumors: improved differentiation with heavily T2-weighted conventional spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 193:43-47.
56. Quinn SF, Benjamin GG. Hepatic cavernous hemangiomas: simple diagnostic sign with dynamic bolus CT. Radiology 1992; 182:545-548.
57. Schwartz LH, Seltzer SE, Tempany CMC, et al. Prospective comparison of T2-weighted fast spin-echo, with and without fat suppression, and conventional spinecho pulse sequences in the upper abdomen. Radiology 1993; 189:411-416.
58. Catasca JV, Mirowitz SA. T2-weighted MR imaging of the abdomen: fast spinecho vs conventional spin-echo sequences. AJR 1994; 162:61-67.
59. Outwater EK, Mitchell DG, Vinitski S. Abdominal MR imaging: evaluation of a fast spin-echo sequence. Radiology 1994; 190:425-429.
60. Goldberg MA, Hahn PF, Saini S, et al. Value of T1 and T2 relaxation times from echoplanar MR imaging in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions. AJR 1993; 160:1011-1017.
61. Mitchell DG, Vinitski S, Saponaro S, Tasciyan T, Burk DL Jr, Rifkin MD. Liver and pancreas: improved spin-echo T1 contrast by shorter echo time and fat suppression at 1.5 T. Radiology 1991; 178:67-72.