AJR ARRS Membership
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 Yu, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Yoo, H. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yu, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Yoo, H. S.
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 170, 1501-1506, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

MR imaging during arterial portography for assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with CT during arterial portography

JS Yu, KW Kim, JT Lee and HS Yoo
Department of Radiology, YongDong Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to document the usefulness of MR imaging during arterial portography (MRAP) versus CT during arterial portography (CTAP) in the diagnosis and assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In addition to static T1- and T2- weighted MR imaging, MRAP was performed immediately after hepatic angiography through contrast material injection into intraarterially placed catheters (superior mesenteric or splenic artery) in 21 patients with nodular hepatocellular carcinoma. CTAP was performed afterward for each patient. The sensitivity and specificity of MRAP for lesion detection and the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma were compared with the sensitivity and specificity of CTAP. RESULTS: MRAP revealed more perfusion defects (n = 56) than did CTAP (n = 46). The sensitivity for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma was higher for MRAP (94%) than for CTAP (83%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05). More hepatocellular nodules with unknown malignant potential were revealed on MRAP (n = 7) than on CTAP (n = 2). For the differential diagnosis of perfusion defects commonly revealed by both techniques, more benign lesions and pseudolesions (n = 14) were shown on MRAP through the combined interpretation with static images than on unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CTAP (n = 11). CONCLUSION: Because of its high sensitivity and its ability to enable radiologists to differentiate benign from malignant conditions, MRAP may have merit compared with CTAP in the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
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
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. P. Hosch, S. M. Schmidt, S. Plaza, C. Dechow, J. Schmidt, S. Ley, G. W. Kauffmann, and J. Hansmann
Comparison of CT during arterial portography and MR during arterial portography in the detection of liver metastases.
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6): 1502 - 1511.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. Szklaruk, P. M. Silverman, and C. Charnsangavej
Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, Treatment, and Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 441 - 454.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
S. Badvie
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Postgrad. Med. J., January 1, 2000; 76(891): 4 - 11.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.