Search

Background: Imaging studies, including computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET), have an essential role in the detection and localization of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM).Purpose: To systematically determine the diagnostic accuracy of multidetector row CT (MDCT), gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI, and PET/CT for diagnosing CRLM and the sources of heterogeneity between the reported results.Study Type: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Subjects: In all, 2151 lesions in CT studies, 2301 lesions in MRI studies, 1846 lesions in PET/CT studies, FIELD STRENGTH: 1.5T and 3.0T.Assessment: We identified research studies that investigated MDCT, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI, and PET/CT to diagnose CRLM by performing a systematic search of PubMed MEDLINE and EMBASE. Study quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2).Statistical Tests: According to the types of imaging tests, study heterogeneity and the threshold effect were analyzed and the meta-analytic summary of sensitivity and specificity were estimated. Meta-regression analysis was performed to further investigate study heterogeneity.Results: Of the 860 articles screened, we found 36 studies from 24 articles reporting a diagnosis of CRLM (11 CT studies, 12 MRI studies, and 13 PET/CT studies). The meta-analytic summary sensitivity for CT, MRI, and PET/CT were 82.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.0-88.1%), 93.1% (95% CI, 88.4-96.0%), and 74.1% (95% CI, 62.1-83.3%), respectively. The meta-analytic summary specificity for CT, MRI, and PET/CT were 73.5% (95% CI, 53.7-86.9%), 87.3% (95% CI, 77.5-93.2%), and 93.9% (95% CI, 83.9-97.8%), respectively. There was no threshold effect in any of the imaging tests. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly decreased the sensitivity of CT and MRI (P < 0.01), although it did not significantly affect the sensitivity of PET/CT. The study design, type of reference standard, and study quality also affected the diagnostic performances of imaging studies.Data Conclusion: Despite the heterogeneous accuracy between studies, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI showed the highest sensitivity, and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI and PET/CT had similar specificities for diagnosing CRLM.Level Of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1237-1250. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the value of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters for characterizing focal hepatic lesions, and to assess the correlation between IVIM parameters and arterial nodule enhancement.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 161 lesions (91 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs], 27 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas [IHCCs], 20 hemangiomas, 9 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas, 9 metastases, and 5 other tumors) in 161 patients (105 men and 56 women; mean age, 56.4 years). Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed using nine b-values (0-900 s/mm2 ) at 1.5T. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), molecular diffusion coefficient (Dslow ), perfusion fraction (f), and perfusion-related diffusion coefficient (Dfast ) were compared among the hepatic lesions using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis was performed to assess diagnostic performance. The enhancement fraction (EF) and the relative enhancement (RE) of the hepatic lesions on arterial phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced images were correlated with the IVIM parameters using Spearman's test.Results: For the differentiation of hemangiomas from malignant tumors, Dslow showed the largest area under the curve (0.933) among all parameters. Although ADC did not show any difference among malignant lesions (P ≥ 0.28), HCCs showed a significantly lower Dslow than IHCC (P < 0.001) and a higher f than did IHCC (P < 0.001) and metastasis (P = 0.027); f had a significant positive correlation with EF (r = 0.420, P < 0.001) and RE (r = 0.264, P = 0.001).Conclusion: IVIM parameters are more helpful in characterizing malignant hepatic lesions than ADC; f may reflect the extent and degree of hepatic nodule enhancement in the arterial phase, and may allow for differentiation of HCC from IHCC and metastasis.Level Of Evidence: 3 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1589-1598. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of fitting methods on the accuracy and reliability of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters, with a particular emphasis on the constraint function.Materials and Methods: Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging data were analyzed using IVIM-based full-fitting (simultaneous fit of all parameters) and segmented-fitting (step-by-step fit of each parameter), each with and without the constraint function, to estimate the molecular diffusion coefficient (Dslow ), perfusion fraction (f), and flow-related diffusion coefficient (Dfast ). Computational simulations were performed at variable signal-to-noise ratios to evaluate the relative error (RE) and coefficient of variation (CV) of the estimated IVIM parameters. DW imaging of the abdomen was performed twice at 1.5 Tesla using nine b-values (0-900 s/mm2 ) in 12 health volunteers (6 men and 6 women; mean age: 30 years). The measurement repeatability of IVIM parameters in the liver and the pancreas was evaluated using the within-subject coefficient of variation (w CV).Results: In simulations, full-fitting without the constraint function yielded the largest RE (P < 0.001 for Dslow and f; P ≤ 0.044 for Dfast ) and CV (P ≤ 0.033 for Dslow and f; P ≤ 0.473 for Dfast ) for IVIM parameters among all four algorithms. In volunteer imaging, full-fitting without the constraint function also resulted in the poorest repeatability for Dslow (w CV, 17.12%-65.45%) and f (w CV, 19.35%-42.84%) in the liver and pancreas, while the other algorithms had similar repeatability values (w CV, 4.05%-11.99% for Dslow and 9.65%-18.66% for f). Measurement repeatability of Dfast (w CV, 29.52%-85.01%) was the poorest among the IVIM parameters.Conclusion: For accurate and reliable measurement of IVIM parameters, segmented fitting or full-fitting with the constraint function should be used for IVIM-based analysis of DW imaging.Level Of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1637-1647. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]