4.4 Article

Detection and grading for esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver damage: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced and unenhanced steady-state coherent MR images

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 1230-1235

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2009.05.030

Keywords

Gadolinium; Liver; MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to compare observer interpreted steady-state coherent coronal images and gadolinium-enhanced axial images in terms of the detection and grading of esophageal varices. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and gastrointestinal endoscopy were performed within 2 weeks in 90 patients with chronic liver damage, including 55 with untreated esophageal varices, for periodic screening purposes. Two blinded readers retrospectively reviewed T1- and T2-weighted images with gadolinium-enhanced (gadolinium image set) and steady-state coherent (coherent image set) images. Sensitivity for the detection of esophageal varices was higher (P <.001) in the gadolinium image set (76%) than in the coherent image set (35%); on the other hand, specificity was higher (P<.001) in the coherent image set (91%) than in the gadolinium image set (66%). Furthermore, area Under the ROC curve was higher for the gadolinium image set (Az=0.823) than the coherent image set (Az=0.761) (P=.48). Moderate and weak positive correlations with endoscopic grades were found for the gadolinium image (r=0.48, P<.01) and coherent image sets (r=0.34, P=.018). The addition of steady-state coherent imaging to the current routine liver imaging protocol did not improve the detection or grading of esophageal varices, whereas gadolinium-enhanced imaging was found to be potentially valuable. Nevertheless, endoscopy was confirmed to be mandatory in patients with esophageal varices suspected by MRI of the liver. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available