RESUMO
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare accuracy of dynamic contrast material-enhanced thin-section multi-detector row helical computed tomography (CT), high-spatial-resolution three-dimensional (3D) dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO)-enhanced MR imaging with optimized gradient-echo (GRE) sequence for depiction of hepatic lesions; surgery and histologic analysis were the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethics committee approval was granted, and written informed consent was obtained. Fifty-eight patients (45 men, 13 women; age range, 47-82 years) with hepatic metastases were imaged with multi-detector row CT (3.2-mm section thickness), 3D dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging (2.5-mm effective section thickness), and SPIO-enhanced MR by using an optimized T2-weighted GRE sequence. Images were reviewed independently by two blinded observers who identified and localized lesions with a four-point confidence scale. Accuracy of each technique was measured with alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results were correlated with findings at surgery with intraoperative ultrasonography or histopathologic examination. Statistical differences among techniques for each observer were measured. RESULTS: Accuracy values for each observer for all metastases (n = 215) and 1.0-cm or smaller metastases (n = 80), respectively, follow: For CT, those for reader 1 were 0.82 and 0.65; for reader 2, 0.81 and 0.68. For gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging, those for reader 1 were 0.92 and 0.79; for reader 2, 0.90 and 0.76. For SPIO-enhanced MR imaging, those for reader 1 were 0.92 and 0.83; for reader 2, 0.92 and 0.81. For all metastases for both observers, there was no significant difference between MR techniques, but both were significantly more accurate than CT (P < .01). For metastases 1.0 cm or smaller and one observer, there was no significant difference between MR techniques, but both were more accurate than CT (P < .01); for the other observer, SPIO-enhanced MR imaging was more accurate than gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging (P < .05) and CT (P < .02), but there was no significant difference between gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and CT (P = .2). CONCLUSION: Accuracy for gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and SPIO-enhanced MR imaging was similar. Both techniques were significantly more accurate than CT.
