Utility of Dual Echo T2-Weighted Turbo Spin Echo MR Imaging for Differentiation of Solid, Malignant HepaticLesions from Nonsolid, Benign Hepatic Lesions.
10.3348/jkrs.1999.41.1.93
- Author:
Dal Mo YANG
1
;
Myung Hwan YOON
;
Hak Soo KIM
;
Eun Joo LEE
;
Jong Ho KIM
;
Hyung Sik KIM
;
Jin Woo CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Gachon Medical College, Gil Medical Center, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Liver, MR;
Liver, neoplasms;
Magnetic resonance (MR), pulse sequences;
Magnetic resonance (MR), contrastenhancement
- MeSH:
Humans;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging*;
Retrospective Studies;
Sensitivity and Specificity
- From:Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
1999;41(1):93-100
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the additive value of multiphasic contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging as a supple-mentto dual-echo T2-weighted TSE MR imaging for the differentiation of solid, malignant hepatic lesions from nonsolid,benign hepatic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed dual-echo T2-weightedTSE MR images and gadolinium-enhanced MR images in 51 patients with hepatic lesions (28 malignant, 69 benign). Forthe dif-ferentiation of malignant from benign lesions, as seen on dual-echo T2-weighted TSE MR images, weevaluated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, and compared with the results with those for dual echoT2-weighted MR images plus multiphasic contrast-enhanced dynamic MR images. In addition, Az values for dual echoT2-weighted MR images were compared with those for dual echo T2-weighted MR images plus multiphasiccon-trast-enhanced dynamic MR images. RESULTS: For the differentiation of malignant from benign hepatic lesions,as seen on dual-echo T2-weighted TSE images, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 80.0 %, 97.5 %, and 93.9%, respectively, for lesions less than 3 cm in diameter, and 92.3 %, 95.0 %, and 93.5 %, respectively, for thosethat were 3 cm or larger. The results for dual-echo T2-weighted MR imaging plus multiphasic contrast-enhanceddynamic MR imaging were 86.7%, 100.0%, and 97.3%, respectively, for lesions less than 3 cm, and 92.3%, 100.0 %,and 95.7 %, re-spectively for those that were 3 cm or larger. There were no significant differences insensitivity, specificity, or accuracy between the results obtained using dual-echo T2-weighted MR imaging andthose obtained with d-ual- echo T2-weighted MR imaging plus multiphasic contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. Norwere there statistically significant differences in Az values between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For thedifferentiation of solid, malignant hepatic lesions from nonsolid, benign hepatic lesions, there is no differencein accuracy between dual-echo T2-weighted TSE MR imaging and the additional use of multiphasic contrast-enhancedMR imaging. Dual-echo T2-weighted TSE MR imaging may, therefore, be use-ful for the differentiation of solid,malignant hepatic lesions from nonsolid, benign hepatic lesions without the use of multiphasic contrast-enhancedMR imaging.
