Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases.

PURPOSE: : To compare the diagnostic accuracy of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) on a 3-T system and integrated contrast-enhanced F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CE-PET/CT) for the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: : The approval from the institutional review board was obtained, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. We retrospectively evaluated 135 metastases in 68 patients (37 men, 31 women; mean age: 68 years; age range: 37-82 years) who underwent both EOB-MRI and CE-PET/CT. A total of 103 metastases were confirmed during surgery and 32 were confirmed by imaging findings during follow-up. The images were independently reviewed by 2 observers. The diagnostic accuracies of EOB-MRI and CE-PET/CT were determined by calculating the areas under each reader-specific receiver operating characteristic curve (Az). Patient-based lesion sensitivity and specificity were compared using the McNemar test.

RESULTS: : The mean area under the Az on EOB-MRI versus CE-PET/CT was 0.94 versus 0.81 for all lesions (P < 0.001), 0.92 versus 0.60 for lesions ≤1 cm in size (P < 0.001), and 0.88 versus 0.96 for lesions >1 cm (P = 0.098), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive value on a patient basis were 100%, 71%, 97%, and 100% for EOB-MRI and 93%, 71%, 97%, and 57% for CE-PET/CT, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: : EOB-MRI using a 3-T system is more accurate than CE-PET/CT, especially for the detection of small (≤1.0 cm) lesions. Patient-based analysis revealed that EOB-MRI has a higher sensitivity and negative predictive value than CE-PET/CT.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app