American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 155, 61-66, Copyright © 1990 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Differentiation between small hepatic hemangiomas and metastases on MR images: importance of size-specific quantitative criteria

K Itoh, S Saini, PF Hahn, N Imam and JT Ferrucci
Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

We studied the feasibility of using MR imaging at 0.6 T to differentiate small hepatic hemangiomas from small metastases on the basis of quantitative criteria. Ninety-two liver masses up to 5 cm in diameter, including 51 proved hemangiomas (mean, 1.9 +/- 1.1 cm) and 41 proved metastases (mean, 1.9 +/- 1.2 cm) were analyzed. Lesions were divided into three groups on the basis of size (less than or equal to 1 cm, greater than 1- less than or equal to 2 cm, greater than 2- less than or equal to 5 cm). The ability to distinguish hemangiomas from metastases was examined by using differences in lesion/liver signal- intensity ratio (SIR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) on T2-weighted images (SE 2350/180). Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis for all lesions grouped together showed that differentiation based on SIR was superior to that based on CNR (p less than .05). The mean SIR of hemangioma and the difference between mean SIRs of hemangioma and metastasis decreased with lesion size (greater than 2- less than or equal to 5 cm: 6.11 +/- 2.61 vs 2.30 +/- 1.22; greater than 1- less than or equal to 2 cm: 4.47 +/- 1.56 vs 2.40 +/- 0.73; less than or equal to 1 cm: 3.59 +/- 0.92 vs 2.01 +/- 0.52). However, in each size group, the difference between the mean SIR of hemangioma and metastasis was statistically significant (p less than .0001). These observations suggest that MR imaging is useful in differentiating small hepatic hemangiomas from small metastases and suggest the need for establishing size-specific quantitative criteria for tissue characterization.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. C. Mueller, H. K. Hussain, R. C. Carlos, H. V. Nghiem, and I. R. Francis Effectiveness of MR Imaging in Characterizing Small Hepatic Lesions: Routine Versus Expert Interpretation Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2003; 180(3): 673 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. L. Bennett, A. Petersein, W. W. Mayo-Smith, P. F. Hahn, W. Schima, and S. Saini Addition of Gadolinium Chelates to Heavily T2-Weighted MR Imaging: Limited Role in Differentiating Hepatic Hemangiomas from Metastases Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2000; 174(2): 477 - 485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Kanematsu, H. Hoshi, K. Itoh, T. Murakami, M. Hori, H. Kondo, R. Yokoyama, and H. Nakamura Focal Hepatic Lesion Detection: Comparison of Four Fat-suppressed T2-weighted MR Imaging Pulse Sequences Radiology, May 1, 1999; 211(2): 363 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				K. M. Horton, D. A. Bluemke, R. H. Hruban, P. Soyer, and E. K. Fishman CT and MR Imaging of Benign Hepatic and Biliary Tumors RadioGraphics, March 1, 1999; 19(2): 431 - 451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]