Liver lesion detection and characterization in patients with colorectal cancer: a comparison of low radiation dose non-enhanced PET/CT, contrast-enhanced PET/CT, and liver MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To compare low-radiation dose non-enhanced fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18 FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) (NE-PET/CT), contrast-enhanced fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT (CE-PET/CT), and gadolinium-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection and characterization of liver lesions in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: In this retrospective review of imaging database of CRC patients with suspected liver metastases, 33 patients (22 men, 11 women; mean age, 63 years) evaluated with low-radiation dose NE-PET/CT, CE-PET/CT, and liver MRI were studied. The final diagnosis was established either by pathological examination or follow-up imaging over a period of at least 6 months for lesion stability or growth. The liver lesions were characterized on an ordinal scale of 0 to 6 (0 = absent, 1 = definitely benign, and 6 = definitely malignant). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to compare performance of the 3 imaging methods. RESULTS: A total of 110 lesions were present on follow-up. The detection rate on low-radiation dose NE-PET/CT, CE-PET/CT, and MRI was 73.6%, 90.9%, and 95.4%, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging (P < 0.001) and CE-PET/CT (P < 0.001) had a higher detection rate than low-radiation dose NE-PET/CT. There was no significant statistical difference in lesion detection between MRI and CE-PET/CT (P = 0.11). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for characterization of detected liver lesions on low-radiation dose NE-PET/CT were 67%, 60%, and 66%, respectively; those on CE-PET/CT were 85%, 100%, and 86%, respectively; and those on MRI were 98%, 100%, and 98%, respectively. Comparative receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an area under curve of 0.74 for low-radiation dose NE-PET/CT, 0.86 for CE-PET/CT, and 0.97 for MRI. There were statistically significant differences in the accuracy of MRI, low-radiation dose NE-PET/CT, and CE-PET/CT for lesion characterization. CONCLUSIONS: When performing PET/CT, optimal detection and characterization of liver lesions require the use of a fused contrast-enhanced CT. Magnetic resonance imaging and CE-PET/CT have similar lesion detection rates. Magnetic resonance imaging is the best test for liver lesion characterization in patients with CRC.

MR venography with true fast imaging with steady-state precession for suspected lower-limb deep vein thrombosis.

PURPOSE: To compare true fast imaging with steady-state precession (FISP) magnetic resonance (MR) venography for suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with contrast agent-enhanced venography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of randomly selected patients with a clinical suspicion of DVT of the lower limb. Standard contrast venography was performed and compared with MR venography from the inferior vena cava to the feet in 24 patients with use of true FISP sequences (repetition time, 3.74 msec; echo time, 1.8 msec). Two radiologists independently read the MR venography and contrast venography studies. Segment visibility, secondary signs of DVT, and additional diagnoses were noted. RESULTS: MR venography demonstrated all venous segments in the pelvis and thigh. When results were analyzed on a per-patient basis, there was good agreement between contrast venography and MR venography (kappa = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94; P = .0001). When the venous system was analyzed on a segmental basis, there was very good agreement between contrast venography and MR venography (kappa = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94; P = .0001). The sensitivity and specificity for DVT detection were 100% for the iliac and popliteal segments and 100% and 98%, 68% and 94%, and 87% and 98%, respectively, for the femoral, below-knee, and all veins. Eleven of 14 patients without DVT had an alternative diagnosis suggested by MR venography. CONCLUSIONS: MR venography with axial true FISP allows noninvasive rapid diagnosis of acute DVT in the iliac, femoral, popliteal, and calf muscle veins. MR venography is much less reliable in the tibial or peroneal veins. It may demonstrate a nonvenous cause of a patient's symptoms.