AJR Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ohtomo, K
Right arrow Articles by Iio, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ohtomo, K
Right arrow Articles by Iio, M
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 152, Issue 3, 505-507
Copyright © 1989 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

MR differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from cavernous hemangioma: complementary roles of FLASH and T2 values

K Ohtomo, Y Itai, H Yoshida, T Kokubo, K Yoshikawa, and M Iio

Department of Radiology, University of Tokyo.

Forty-two patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (hepatoma) and 18 patients with hemangioma were studied with MR imaging at 1.5 T to evaluate the efficacy of single-slice breath-hold FLASH (fast low-angle shot) images in distinguishing between the lesions and to compare with T2 differentiation using conventional spin-echo images. The difference between mean tumor-to-liver signal ratio on FLASH imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma (1.46 +/- 1.06) and hemangioma (0.86 +/- 0.45) was statistically significant (p less than .01). Fifty-one (82%) of 62 lesions were classified correctly when the borderline of tumor-to-liver signal ratio between hepatoma and hemangioma was set at 0.9. The mean T2 values of hepatomas and hemangiomas were 48 +/- 10 msec and 89 +/- 20 msec, respectively. Fifty-seven (92%) of 62 lesions were correctly diagnosed with the T2 borderline of 80 msec. The five misdiagnosed lesions with the T2 borderline were hemangiomas smaller than 2 cm with tumor-to-liver signal ratios less than 0.9. FLASH images appear promising for differentiating between hepatoma and hemangioma, and they complement T2 values in characterizing small lesions.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. S. Arbab, T. Ichikawa, H. Sou, T. Araki, H. Nakajima, K. Ishigame, T. Yoshikawa, and H. Kumagai
Ferumoxides-enhanced Double-Echo T2-weighted MR Imaging in Differentiating Metastases from Nonsolid Benign Lesions of the Liver
Radiology, October 1, 2002; 225(1): 151 - 158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. Tello, H. M. Fenlon, T. Gagliano, V. L. S. deCarvalho, and E. K. Yucel
Prediction Rule for Characterization of Hepatic Lesions Revealed on MR Imaging: Estimation of Malignancy
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176(4): 879 - 884.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.