Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Soyer, P.
Right arrow Articles by Menu, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Soyer, P.
Right arrow Articles by Menu, Y.

Radiology, Vol 190, 737-740, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Focal hepatic masses: comparison of detection during arterial portography with MR imaging and CT

P Soyer, JP Laissy, A Sibert, F Blanc, J Belghiti, JP Marmuse, G Zeitoun, M Levesque and Y Menu
Department of Radiology, Hopital Bichat, Paris, France.

PURPOSE: A prospective study was performed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) both performed during arterial portography in depicting focal hepatic masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients with 31 pathologically proved focal hepatic masses were prospectively evaluated. MR arterial portography was performed with 4 mL of a 0.5 mmol/kg solution of gadolinium tetraazacyclododecanetetraacetic acid (DOTA) injected through a catheter into the superior mesenteric artery during multisection gradient-echo imaging. RESULTS: MR arterial portography depicted 29 of the 31 masses (sensitivity, 94%). CT arterial portography depicted 27 of the 31 masses (sensitivity, 87%). Two masses not depicted with either CT or MR had a diameter of 3 and 7 mm, respectively. Neither MR nor CT demonstrated a false-positive finding (specificity, 100%). The difference in sensitivity and specificity between the two techniques was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: MR arterial portography does not enable detection of significantly more focal hepatic masses than does CT arterial portography.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. P. Hosch, S. M. Schmidt, S. Plaza, C. Dechow, J. Schmidt, S. Ley, G. W. Kauffmann, and J. Hansmann
Comparison of CT during arterial portography and MR during arterial portography in the detection of liver metastases.
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6): 1502 - 1511.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. Bipat, M. S. van Leeuwen, E. F. I. Comans, M. E. J. Pijl, P. M. M. Bossuyt, A. H. Zwinderman, and J. Stoker
Colorectal Liver Metastases: CT, MR Imaging, and PET for Diagnosis--Meta-analysis
Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 123 - 131.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. V. Sahani, S. P. Kalva, A. J. Fischman, R. Kadavigere, M. Blake, P. F. Hahn, and S. Saini
Detection of Liver Metastases from Adenocarcinoma of the Colon and Pancreas: Comparison of Mangafodipir Trisodium-Enhanced Liver MRI and Whole-Body FDG PET
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2005; 185(1): 239 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br Med BullHome page
T H Saunders, H K Mendes Ribeiro, and F V Gleeson
New techniques for imaging colorectal cancer: the use of MRI, PET and radioimmunoscintigraphy for primary staging and follow-up
Br. Med. Bull., December 1, 2002; 64(1): 81 - 99.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1994 by the Radiological Society of North America.