4.7 Article

Evaluating local hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence post-transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: Is diffusion-weighted MRI reliable as an indicator?

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 834-839

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21316

Keywords

liver; diffusion; MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate the detectability of local hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) by diffusion-weighted MR imaging in correlation with those of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Materials and Methods: Respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted MR images b factor, 500 s/mm(2); number of averaging, six were obtained in 25 patients with 39 HCCs. Two independent radiologists evaluated diffusion-weighted MR images, gadolinium-enhanced MR images after TACE, and assigned confidence levels for postoperative HCC recurrence. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) in HCCs were also measured. Sensitivities and specificities were compared using an extension of the McNemar test. Observer performance was also determined by ROC curve analysis. Results: Local recurrences in 14 HCCs and complete tumor necrosis in 25 HCCs after TACE were determined. Sensitivity for the detection of local HCC recurrence was higher on gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging (82%) than on diffusion-weighted MR imaging (60.7%) for the two readers in combination and separately (P < 0.05). Specificities were comparably high for both sequences. Az values were higher for gadolinium-enhanced MR images (0.92) than for diffusion-weighted MR images (0.74) for readers in combination and separately (P < 0.05). Mean ADC values showed an increase after TACE (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Diffusion-weighted MR imaging was not found to be a reliable predictor of local HCC recurrence after TACE as compared with gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available