Display options
Cite
Ippolito D, Colombo M, Trattenero C, et al. Diagnostic Value of Semiquantitative Analysis of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging with GD-EOB-DTPA in Focal Liver Lesions Characterization: A Feasibility Study. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:630273doi: 10.1155/2015/630273.
Ippolito, D., Colombo, M., Trattenero, C., Bonaffini, P. A., Talei Franzesi, C., Fior, D., & Sironi, S. (2015). Diagnostic Value of Semiquantitative Analysis of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging with GD-EOB-DTPA in Focal Liver Lesions Characterization: A Feasibility Study. Gastroenterology research and practice, 2015630273. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/630273
Ippolito, Davide, et al. "Diagnostic Value of Semiquantitative Analysis of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging with GD-EOB-DTPA in Focal Liver Lesions Characterization: A Feasibility Study." Gastroenterology research and practice vol. 2015 (2015): 630273. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/630273
Ippolito D, Colombo M, Trattenero C, Bonaffini PA, Talei Franzesi C, Fior D, Sironi S. Diagnostic Value of Semiquantitative Analysis of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging with GD-EOB-DTPA in Focal Liver Lesions Characterization: A Feasibility Study. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:630273. doi: 10.1155/2015/630273. Epub 2015 May 06. PMID: 26064093; PMCID: PMC4438153.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:630273. doi: 10.1155/2015/630273. Epub 2015 May 06.

Diagnostic Value of Semiquantitative Analysis of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging with GD-EOB-DTPA in Focal Liver Lesions Characterization: A Feasibility Study.

Gastroenterology research and practice

Davide Ippolito, Maddalena Colombo, Chiara Trattenero, Pietro Andrea Bonaffini, Cammillo Talei Franzesi, Davide Fior, Sandro Sironi

Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20900 Milan, Italy ; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, H. S. Gerardo Monza, Milan, Italy.

PMID: 26064093 PMCID: PMC4438153 DOI: 10.1155/2015/630273

Abstract

Purpose. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DSCE-MRI) in differentiation between benign and malignant liver lesions by assessment of tumoral perfusion parameters. Methods Materials. Seventy-three patients with known focal liver lesions, including 45 benign (16 FNH, 27 angiomas, and 2 abscesses) and 28 malignant ones (17 metastases, 9 HCCs, and 2 cholangiocarcinoma) underwent 1.5 T MRI upper abdominal study, with standard protocol that included dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. On dedicated workstation, time-intensity curves were determined and the following perfusion parameters were calculated: relative arterial, venous and late enhancement (RAE, RVE, RLE), maximum enhancement (ME), relative enhancement (RE), and time to peak (TTP). Results. All diagnoses were established either by histopathology or imaging follow-up. Perfusion mean values calculated in benign lesions were RAE 33.8%, RVE 66.03%, RLE 80.63%, ME 776.00%, MRE 86.27%, and TTP 146.95 sec. Corresponding perfusion values calculated in malignant lesions were RAE 22.47%, RVE 40.54%, RLE 47.52%, ME 448.78%, MRE 49.85%, and TTP 183.79 sec. Statistical difference (p < 0.05) was achieved in all the perfusion parameters calculated, obtaining different cluster of perfusion kinetics between benign and malignant lesions. Conclusions. DSCE-MRI depicts kinetic differences in perfusion parameters among the different common liver lesions, related to tumour supply and microvascular characteristics.

References

  1. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1994 May-Jun;4(3):331-5 - PubMed
  2. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994 May;15(5):965-8 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Radiol. 2000 Jun;34(3):148-55 - PubMed
  4. Int J Cancer. 2001 Oct 15;94(2):153-6 - PubMed
  5. Magn Reson Med. 2014 Mar;71(3):934-41 - PubMed
  6. Semin Oncol. 2001 Oct;28(5):441-9 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Dec;76(3):348-58 - PubMed
  8. Radiology. 2003 Nov;229(2):409-14 - PubMed
  9. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Jan;31(1):10-6 - PubMed
  10. Clin Sci (Lond). 2000 Dec;99(6):517-25 - PubMed
  11. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Mar;176(3):667-73 - PubMed
  12. Radiology. 1998 Oct;209(1):129-34 - PubMed
  13. Radiology. 1997 Feb;202(2):306-14 - PubMed
  14. Radiology. 1992 Jun;183(3):667-72 - PubMed
  15. Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jan;47(1):135-42 - PubMed
  16. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009 May;17(2):339-49 - PubMed
  17. Radiology. 1997 Dec;205(3):716-20 - PubMed
  18. Radiology. 1990 Mar;174(3 Pt 1):757-62 - PubMed
  19. Radiology. 2005 Mar;234(3):661-73 - PubMed
  20. Magn Reson Med. 2003 Apr;49(4):692-9 - PubMed
  21. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009 Jan;47(1):161-78 - PubMed
  22. Gastroenterology. 2007 Jun;132(7):2557-76 - PubMed
  23. Lancet Oncol. 2001 May;2(5):278-89 - PubMed
  24. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Aug;28(2):390-5 - PubMed

Publication Types