Incidence of adrenal masses in patients referred for renal artery stenosis screening MR.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Prior work has shown the efficacy of magnetic resonance (MR) in renal artery stenosis evaluation. The increasing role of renal artery stenosis in the differential diagnostic evaluation of hypertension raises the question of whether MR should be used as a screening modality. This project evaluated the additional potential benefits of MR by determining the incidence of adrenal masses in this selected population. METHODS: A 2-year retrospective study analysis of patients who failed to respond to antihypertensive medical management and were referred for renal MR for hypertension amassed 77 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 88 years. A masked analysis for adrenal masses was performed on this data set. Magnetic resonance techniques included T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (repetition time [TR] 2000-4000 ms, echo time [TE] 80-100 ms, turbo factor 2-16), T1-weighted spin-echo (TR 200-500 ms, TE 10-30 ms), gradient-echo time-of-flight (TR 26 ms, TE 6.9 ms, 40 degrees flip angle, 2 excitations), and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR angiography (three-dimensional gradient recalled echo, TR 10 ms, TE 3 ms, 40 degrees flip angle, 1 excitation). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients had renal artery disease, 44 had normal renal arteries, and 7 had adrenal masses. Forty-three percent of patients who underwent renal MR had disease of the renal arteries detected, and 9% of patients referred for MR had adrenal masses that would have been missed with scintigraphy and/or angiography, of which 57% were responsible for hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to evaluate renal artery and adrenal anatomy globally can be useful, as exemplified in the current series, and the adrenals should be examined carefully in any renal MR in a hypertensive patient.

Prediction rule for characterization of hepatic lesions revealed on MR imaging: estimation of malignancy.

OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to establish factors that are most predictive of hepatic lesion malignancy and to formulate a prediction rule. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 227 abdominal MR imaging examinations revealed 85 lesions in 67 patients (29 men, 38 women; age range, 29-78 years; mean age, 51.4 years) who were being examined for primary malignancy (n = 42) or unknown lesion characterization (n = 25). All were referred for MR imaging after CT or sonography. Patient demographics (age, sex, history of malignancy), lesion size and morphology, quantitative T2 calculation, and pattern of enhancement on gadopentetate dimeglumine administration were evaluated for predictive ability. RESULTS: Thirty-two liver lesions were malignant (eight colon cancer, five breast cancer, four cervical cancer, three renal cancer, three lung cancer, and nine miscellaneous cancers), 53 were benign (37 hemangiomas, 15 cysts, and one focal nodular hyperplasia). Calculated T2 relaxation times (mean +/- standard deviation [SD]) were as follows: malignant tumors (91.72 +/- 21.9 msec), hemangiomas (136.1 +/- 26.3 msec), cysts (284.1 +/- 38.2 msec) (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that lesion size and sex and age of patient were not significant independent predictors (p > 0.05). However, the combination of a history of malignancy, T2 value, and gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhancement pattern allowed generation of a prediction rule with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95. The patient's weight, lesion morphology, and cell type of the primary malignancy did not provide additional predictive information (p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: We recommend using the combination of T2 quantification and patient history of malignancy before deciding to administer gadopentetate dimeglumine for optimal lesion characterization, especially for equivocal lesions with T2 values between 90 and 130 msec. These factors allowed the construction of a prediction rule for lesion characterization.

Signal characteristics of focal liver lesions on double echo T2-weighted conventional spin echo MRI: observer performance versus quantitative measurements of T2 relaxation times.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the ability of expert readers to differentiate benign from malignant liver lesions based on visual assessment of lesion signal intensity on double echo T2-weighted conventional spin echo (CSE) MR images and to compare reader performance with quantitative measurements of T2 relaxation times. METHOD: Sixty-seven MR examinations demonstrating 85 liver lesions (37 hemangiomas, 32 malignancies, 15 cysts, and 1 focal nodular hyperplasia) on double echo T2-weighted CSE sequences (TR 3,600 ms/TE 50, 160 ms) were qualitatively reviewed by three independent readers. T2 relaxation times were calculated for each lesion. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of expert readers were compared with calculated T2 relaxation times. RESULTS: T2 values performed significantly better than subjective reader analysis for liver lesion characterization (area under ROC = 0.93 vs. 0.81, 0.78, and 0.75; p < 0.0001). With use of a T2 threshold of 125 ms, the sensitivity of T2 values for malignant lesions was 100%, specificity 71%, and accuracy 84%. By comparison, the sensitivity of the three readers for malignant lesions was 76-83%, with a specificity of 61-72% and an overall accuracy of 71-80%. CONCLUSION: Despite expert reader analyses, subjective evaluations of liver lesion signal characteristics are prone to inaccuracy and lack certainty and consistency when intermediate TEs (50/160 ms) are used. Quantitative measurements of T2 relaxation times should be performed to accurately and confidently differentiate benign from malignant liver lesions. Use of a higher T2 threshold than previously recommended is required to avoid misclassification of malignancies.