Search

Your search keyword '"HAMMERSTINGL R"' showing total 224 results
Start Over Author "HAMMERSTINGL R"
224 results on '"HAMMERSTINGL R"'

17. CT-guided biopsies of unspecified suspect intrahepatic lesions: pre-procedure Lipiodol-marking improves the biopsy success rate

Author

Langenbach Marcel Christian, Vogl Thomas Joseph, Buchinger Amelie, Eichler Katrin, Scholtz Jan-Erik, Hammerstingl Renate, and Gruber-Rouh Tatjana

Subjects
ethiodized oil, liver, biopsy, x-ray computed tomography, Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine, R895-920
Abstract

While computed tomography (CT)-guided liver biopsies are commonly performed using unenhanced images, contrast-enhanced images are beneficial for challenging puncture pathways and lesion locations. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of CT-guided biopsies for intrahepatic lesions using unenhanced, intravenous (IV)-enhanced, or intra-arterial Lipiodol-marked CT for lesion marking.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

19. Schwere transiente Atemartefakte in der Leber-MRT mit Gadoxetat Dinatrium (Primovist®): Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen Studie

Author

Kukuk, G, additional, Ringe, K, additional, Maurer, M, additional, Reimer, P, additional, Michalik, S, additional, Wessling, J, additional, Hammerstingl, R, additional, Dörner, J, additional, Nähle, C, additional, Fimmers, R, additional, Willinek, W, additional, Schreyer, A, additional, and Luetkens, J, additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Prospective randomized study of doxorubicin-eluting-bead embolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the PRECISION V study

Author

Watkinson, A., Avajon, Y., Gruenberger, T., Pomoni, M., Schuchmann, M., Mueller, C., Lencioni, R., Lammer, J., Langenberger, H., Schoder, M., Funovics, M., Loewe, C., Moyses, J., Grunberger, T., Waldenberger, P., Chemelli, A., Graziadei, I., Vogl, T., Khan, V., Hammerstingl, R., Lee, C., Eichler, K., Pitton, M., Klockner, R., Duber, C., Otto, G., Worns, M. A., Greten, T., Kirchhoff, T., Rosenthal, H., Lotz, J., Huppert, P., Wietholtz, H., Limmer, A., Pilleul, F., Ficarelli, S., Mennesson, N., Rauscher, N., Dumortier, J., Guillaud, O., Vilgrain, V., Sibert, A., Chevallier, P., Novellas, S., Tran, A., Ouzan, D., Gugenheim, J., Sergent, G., Otal, P., Joffre, F., Auriol, J., Peron, J. M., Benhamou, Y., Ratzui, V., Clluzel, P., Baere, T., Deschamps, F., Roo, P., Ajavon, Y., Awad, S., Bellin, M. F., Samuel, D., Castaing, D., Adam, R., Vallee, J. C., Saliba, F., Azoulay, D., Denys, A., Triller, J., Kickuth, R., Terraz, S., Becker, C. D., Majno, P., Spahr, L., Pfammatter, T., Weishaupt, D., Muellhaupt, B., Malagari, K., Maria, P., Kelekis, D., Kelekis, N., Kelekis, A., Emmanouil, E., Pisa University Hospital and School of Medicine, Department of Chemistry, North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina State University [Raleigh] (NC State), University of North Carolina System (UNC)-University of North Carolina System (UNC), Centre de Recherche et d'Application en Traitement de l'Image et du Signal (CREATIS), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL), Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon (INSA Lyon), Université de Lyon-Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA)-Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA)-École Supérieure Chimie Physique Électronique de Lyon-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Département d'hépatologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL), Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Hôpital Beaujon [AP-HP], Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP), Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes), Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie Nantes-Angers (CRCNA), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers (CHU Angers), PRES Université Nantes Angers Le Mans (UNAM)-PRES Université Nantes Angers Le Mans (UNAM)-Hôtel-Dieu de Nantes-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Hôpital Laennec-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Faculté de Médecine d'Angers-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes), Centre d'investigation clinique en cancérologie (CI2C), Animal et gestion intégrée des risques (UPR AGIRs), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad), Institut Arnault Tzanck, Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Transplantation Hépatique, Hôpital Archet II, Service de Radiologie [Rangueil / Larrey], CHU Toulouse [Toulouse]-Hôpital de Rangueil, CHU Toulouse [Toulouse], CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière [AP-HP], Sorbonne Université (SU)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP), Imagerie thérapeutique (radiologie interventionnelle), Département d'imagerie médicale [Gustave Roussy], Institut Gustave Roussy (IGR)-Institut Gustave Roussy (IGR), ETH Hoenggerberg, Institute of Geophysics, Institut de biologie et chimie des protéines [Lyon] (IBCP), Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centre hépato-biliaire (CHB), Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Paul Brousse-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Centre Hépato-Biliaire, Stadtspital Triemli Zürich, Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-École Supérieure de Chimie Physique Électronique de Lyon (CPE)-Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon (INSA Lyon), Université de Lyon-Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA)-Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Service de Chirurgie Digestive / Centre de Transplantation Hépatique [CHU Nice], Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (CHU Nice), and Ratiney, Helene

Subjects
[SDV.IB.IMA] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Bioengineering/Imaging, [SDV.IB.IMA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Bioengineering/Imaging, ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS
Abstract

International audience

Published
2010

23. Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: comparison with intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal liver lesions

Author

Hammerstingl, R, Huppertz, A, Breuer, J, Balzer, T, Blakeborough, A, Carter, R, Fusté, Lc, Heinz Peer, G, Judmaier, W, Laniado, M, Manfredi, Riccardo, Mathieu, Dg, Müller, D, Mortelè, K, Reimer, P, Reiser, Mf, Robinson, Pj, Shamsi, K, Strotzer, M, Taupitz, M, Tombach, B, Valeri, G, van Beers BE, Vogl, Tj, and For the European EOB study group

Subjects
Adult, Gadolinium DTPA, Male, Magnetic resonance imaging, Computed tomography, Focal liver lesions, Liver-specific, Hepatobiliary, Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, Therapeutic strategy, medicine.medical_specialty, Gadoxetic acid, Contrast Media, Sensitivity and Specificity, Gadoxetate Disodium, medicine, Humans, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Prospective Studies, Neuroradiology, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Ultrasound, Liver Neoplasms, Interventional radiology, General Medicine, Middle Aged, Spiral computed tomography, Female, Radiology, Differential diagnosis, business, Tomography, Spiral Computed, medicine.drug
Abstract

A multicenter study has been employed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the new liver-specific contrast agent gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA, Primovist), as opposed to contrast-enhanced biphasic spiral computed tomography (CT), in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions, compared with a standard of reference (SOR). One hundred and sixty-nine patients with hepatic lesions eligible for surgery underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI as well as CT within 6 weeks. Pathologic evaluation of the liver specimen combined with intraoperative ultrasound established the SOR. Data sets were evaluated on-site (14 investigators) and off-site (three independent blinded readers). Gd-EOB-DTPA was well tolerated. Three hundred and two lesions were detected in 131 patients valid for analysis by SOR. The frequency of correctly detected lesions was significantly higher on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI compared with CT in the clinical evaluation [10.44%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.88, 16.0]. In the blinded reading there was a trend towards Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, not reaching statistical significance (2.14%; 95% CI: -4.32, 8.6). However, the highest rate of correctly detected lesions with a diameter below 1 cm was achieved by Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Differential diagnosis was superior for Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI (82.1%) versus CT (71.0%). A change in surgical therapy was documented in 19 of 131 patients (14.5%) post Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI was superior in the diagnosis and therapeutic management of focal liver lesions compared with CT.

Published
2008

25. Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in 471 patients with known or suspected renal lesions: Results of a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase III trial

Author

Tombach, B. (Bernd), Bohndorf, K. (Klaus), Brodtrager, W. (Wolfgang), Claussen, C.D. (Claus), Düber, C. (Christoph), Galanski, M. (Michael), Grabbe, E. (Eckhardt), Gortenuti, G. (Giacomo), Kuhn, M. (Michael), Gross-Fengels, W. (Walter), Hammerstingl, R. (Renate), Happel, B. (Brigitte), Heinz-Peer, G. (Gertraud), Jung, G. (Gregor), Kittner, T. (Thomas), Lagalla, R., Lengsfeld, P. (Philipp), Loose, R. (Reinhard), Oyen, R.H.G. (Raymond), Pavlica, P. (Pietro), Pering, C. (Christiane), Pozzi Mucelli, R. (Roberto Silvio), Persigehl, T. (Thorsten), Reimer, P. (Peter), Renken, N.S. (Nomdo), Richter, G.M. (Götz), Rummeny, E.J. (Ernst), Schäfer, F. (Fritz), Szczerbo-Trojanowska, M. (Malgorzata), Urbanik, A. (Andrzej), Vogl, T.J. (Thomas), Hajek, P. (Paul), Tombach, B. (Bernd), Bohndorf, K. (Klaus), Brodtrager, W. (Wolfgang), Claussen, C.D. (Claus), Düber, C. (Christoph), Galanski, M. (Michael), Grabbe, E. (Eckhardt), Gortenuti, G. (Giacomo), Kuhn, M. (Michael), Gross-Fengels, W. (Walter), Hammerstingl, R. (Renate), Happel, B. (Brigitte), Heinz-Peer, G. (Gertraud), Jung, G. (Gregor), Kittner, T. (Thomas), Lagalla, R., Lengsfeld, P. (Philipp), Loose, R. (Reinhard), Oyen, R.H.G. (Raymond), Pavlica, P. (Pietro), Pering, C. (Christiane), Pozzi Mucelli, R. (Roberto Silvio), Persigehl, T. (Thorsten), Reimer, P. (Peter), Renken, N.S. (Nomdo), Richter, G.M. (Götz), Rummeny, E.J. (Ernst), Schäfer, F. (Fritz), Szczerbo-Trojanowska, M. (Malgorzata), Urbanik, A. (Andrzej), Vogl, T.J. (Thomas), and Hajek, P. (Paul)

Abstract

The purpose of this phase III clinical trial was to compare two different extracellular contrast agents, 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine, for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with known or suspected focal renal lesions. Using a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized study design, both contrast agents were compared in a total of 471 patients regarding their diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity to correctly classify focal lesions of the kidney. To test for noninferiority the diagnostic accuracy rates for both contrast agents were compared with CT results based on a blinded reading. The average diagnostic accuracy across the three blinded readers ('average reader') was 83.7% for gadobutrol and 87.3% for gadopentate dimeglumine. The increase in accuracy from precontrast to combined precontrast and postcontrast MRI was 8.0% for gadobutrol and 6.9% for gadopentate dimeglumine. Sensitivity of the average reader was 85.2% for gadobutrol and 88.7% for gadopentate dimeglumine. Specificity of the average reader was 82.1% for gadobutrol and 86.1% for gadopentate dimeglumine. In conclusion, this study documents evidence for the noninferiority of a single i.v. bolus injection of 1.0 M gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine in the diagnostic assessment of renal lesions with CE-MRI.

Published
2008
Full Text
View/download PDF

26. Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in 471 patients with known or suspected renal lesions: results of a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase III trial

Author

Tombach, B, Bohndorf, K, Brodtrager, W, Claussen, CD, Duber, C, Galanski, M, Grabbe, E, Gortenuti, G, Kuhn, M, Gross-Fengels, W, Hammerstingl, R, Happel, B, Heinz-Peer, G, Jung, G, Kittner, T, Lagalla, R, Lengsfeld, P, Loose, R, Oyen, RHG, Pavlica, P, Pering, C, Pozzi-Mucelli, R, Persigehl, T, Reimer, P, Renken, NS, Richter, GM, Rummeny, EJ, Schafer, F, Szczerbo-Trojanowska, M, Urbanik, A, Vogl, TJ, Hajek, P, Tombach, B, Bohndorf, K, Brodtrager, W, Claussen, CD, Duber, C, Galanski, M, Grabbe, E, Gortenuti, G, Kuhn, M, Gross-Fengels, W, Hammerstingl, R, Happel, B, Heinz-Peer, G, Jung, G, Kittner, T, Lagalla, R, Lengsfeld, P, Loose, R, Oyen, RHG, Pavlica, P, Pering, C, Pozzi-Mucelli, R, Persigehl, T, Reimer, P, Renken, NS, Richter, GM, Rummeny, EJ, Schafer, F, Szczerbo-Trojanowska, M, Urbanik, A, Vogl, TJ, and Hajek, P

Abstract

The purpose of this phase III clinical trial was to compare two different extracellular contrast agents, 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine, for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with known or suspected focal renal lesions. Using a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized study design, both contrast agents were compared in a total of 471 patients regarding their diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity to correctly classify focal lesions of the kidney. To test for noninferiority the diagnostic accuracy rates for both contrast agents were compared with CT results based on a blinded reading. The average diagnostic accuracy across the three blinded readers ('average reader') was 83.7% for gadobutrol and 87.3% for gadopentate dimeglumine. The increase in accuracy from precontrast to combined precontrast and postcontrast MRI was 8.0% for gadobutrol and 6.9% for gadopentate dimeglumine. Sensitivity of the average reader was 85.2% for gadobutrol and 88.7% for gadopentate dimeglumine. Specificity of the average reader was 82.1% for gadobutrol and 86.1% for gadopentate dimeglumine. In conclusion, this study documents evidence for the noninferiority of a single i.v. bolus injection of 1.0 M gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine in the diagnostic assessment of renal lesions with CE-MRI.

Published
2008

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results