Modern imaging for liver metastases from colorectal tumors;Moderne bildgebung bei lebermetastasen kolorektaler tumoren

Chirurg

Volumn 76, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 525-534

  Gaa, J ^a   Wieder, H ^a   Schwaiger, M ^a   Rummeny, E J ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computed tomography; Helical computed tomography; Liver metastases; Magnetic resonance imaging; Positron emission tomography; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LIVER METASTASIS; LIVER WEIGHT; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; STANDARD; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LIVER DISEASES; LIVER NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 22044437054     PISSN: 00094722     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00104-005-1031-0     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Albrecht T, Blomley MJK, Burns PN et al. (2003) Improved detection of hepatic metastases with pulse-inversion US during the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A: multicenter study. Radiology 227:361
2. Antoch G, Jentzen W, Freudenberg LS et al. (2003) Effect of oral contrast agents on computed tomography-based positron emission tomography attenuation correction in dual-modality positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Invest Radiol 38:784
3. Arulampalam TH, Francis DL, Visvikis D, Taylor I, Ell JP (2004) FDG-PET for the pre-operative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 30:286
4. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T et al. (2000) A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 41:1369
5. Bluemke DA, Paulson EK, Choti MA, DeSena S, Clavien PA (2000) Detection of hepatic lesions in candidates for surgery: comparison of ferrumoxides- enhanced MR imaging and dual-phase helical CT. Am J Roentgenol 175:1653
6. Braga L, Guller U, Semelka R (2004) Modern hepatic imaging. Surg Clin N Am 84:375
7. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL (2003) Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44:1797
8. Gaa J, Hatabu H, Jenkins RL, Finn JP, Edelman RR (1996) Liver masses: replacement of conventional T2-weighted spin-echo MR imaging by breathhold MR imaging. Radiology 200:459
9. Goerres GW, Ziegler SI, Burger C et al. (2003) Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology 226:577
10. Haider MA, Amitai MM, Rappaport DC et al. (2002) Multi-detector row helical CT in preoperative assessment of small (
11. Jarnagin WR, Bach AM, Winston CB et al. (2001) What is the yield of intraoperative ultrasonography during partial hepatectomy for malignant disease? J Am Coll Surg 192:577
12. Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin T (1998) Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 25:2046
13. Kuszyk BS, Bluemke DA, Urban BA et al. (1996) Portal-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT for the detection of malignant hepatic tumors: sensitivity based on comparison with intraoperative and pathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol 166:91
14. Langenhoff BS, Oyen WJ, Jager GJ et al. (2002) Efficacy of fluorine-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in detecting tumor recurrence after local ablative therapy for liver metastases: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 20:4453
15. Ohlsson B, Tranberg KG, Lundstedt C, Ekberg H, Hederstrom E (1993) Detection of hepatic metastases in colorectal cancer: a prospective study of laboratory and imaging methods. Eur J Surg 159:275
16. Ruers TJ, Langenhoff BS, Neeleman N et al. (2002) Value of positron emission tomography with (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 20:388
17. Sahani DV, Kalva SR, Tanabe KK et al. (2004) Intraoperative US in patients undergoing surgery for liver neoplasms: comparison with MR imaging. Radiology 232:810
18. Schima W, Stadler A (2002) Hepatic metastases: diagnostic imaging. Eur Surg 34:319
19. Scott DJ, Guthrie JA, Arnold P et al. (2001) Dual phase helical CT versus portal venous phase CT for the detection of colorectal liver metastases: correlation with intra-operative sonography, surgical and pathological findings. Clin Radiol 56:235
20. Semelka RC, Cance WG, Marcos HB, Mauro MA (1999) Liver metastases: comparison of current MR techniques and spiral CT arterial portography for detection in 20 surgically staged cases. Radiology 213:86
21. Seneterre E, Taourel P, Bouvier Y et al. (1996) Detection of hepatic metastases: ferrumoxides-enhanced MR imaging versus unenhanced MR imaging and CT during arterial portography. Radiology 200:785
22. Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Hruban RH, Sitzmann JV, Fishman EK (1994) Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: detection and fals-positive findings with helical CT during arterial portography. Radiology 193:71
23. Soyer P, Poccard M, Boudiaf M et al. (2004) Detection of hypovascular hepatic metastases at triple-phase helical CT: sensitivity of phases and comparison with surgical and histopathological findings. Radiology 231:413
24. Valls C, Lopez E, Guma A et al. (1998) Helical CT versus CT arterial portography in the detection of hepatic metastasis of colorectal carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 170:1341
25. Valls C, Andia E, Sanchez A et al. (2001) Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: preoperative detection and assessment of resectability with helical CT. Radiology 218:55
26. Ward J, Naik KS, Guthrie JA, Wilson D, Robinson PJ (1999) Hepatic lesion detection: comparison of MR imaging after administration of superparamagnetic iron oxide with dual-phase CT by using alternative-free response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 210:459
27. Wernecke K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G et al. (1991) Detection of hepatic masses in patients with carcinoma: comparative sensitivities of sonography, CT, and MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 157:731