Tumor involvement in hepatic veins: Comparison of MR imaging and US for preoperative assessment

被引:27
作者
Hann, LE
Schwartz, LH
Panicek, DM
Bach, AM
Fong, YM
Blumgart, LH
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Radiol, New York, NY 10021 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Surg, New York, NY 10021 USA
关键词
hepatic veins; MR; stenosis or obstruction; US; liver; liver neoplasms;
D O I
10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494482
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100207 [影像医学与核医学]; 1009 [特种医学];
摘要
PURPOSE: To compare use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and ultrasonography (US) for diagnosis of vascular involvement by tumor at the hepatic vein confluence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven consecutive patients with tumors at the hepatic vein confluence were prospectively evaluated with spin-echo and gradient-echo MR imaging and gray-scale and Doppler US. Encasement, thrombosis, occlusion, and nonvisualization were considered to be evidence of vascular involvement. Imaging results were compared with surgical and pathologic examination findings in 27 patients who underwent resection. RESULTS: Sixteen hepatic veins (nine right, four middle, three left) were seen to be involved at surgery. Twelve of 16 involved veins were identified at MR imaging (75% sensitivity, 98% specificity, 92% positive predictive value, 94% negative predictive value). Thirteen of 16 involved veins were detected at US (81% sensitivity, 97% specificity, and 87% positive and 95% negative predictive values). There was no false-positive diagnosis of inferior vena cava involvement at both MR imaging and US. Ten patients had unresectable disease. One patient had motion artifact on MR images; in the remaining nine patients, MR imaging and US yielded identical findings at 26 and 27 hepatic vein sites. CONCLUSION: MR imaging and US provide comparable results for assessment of hepatic vein involvement by tumor.
引用
收藏
页码:651 / 656
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]
Portal vein evaluation with US: Comparison to angiography combined with CT arterial portography [J].
Bach, AM ;
Hann, LE ;
Brown, KT ;
Getrajdman, GI ;
Herman, SK ;
Fong, YM ;
Blumgart, LH .
RADIOLOGY, 1996, 201 (01) :149-154
[2]
BISMUTH H, 1994, SURG LIVER BILIARY T, P3
[3]
Blumgart LH, 1994, SURG LIVER BILIARY T, P1495
[4]
BLUMGART LH, 1995, CURR PROB SURG, V32, P337
[5]
MR-IMAGING OF THE LIVER - BREATH-HOLD T1-WEIGHTED MP-GRE COMPARED WITH CONVENTIONAL T2-WEIGHTED SE IMAGING - LESION DETECTION, LOCALIZATION, AND CHARACTERIZATION [J].
DELANGE, EE ;
MUGLER, JP ;
BOSWORTH, JE ;
DEANGELIS, GA ;
GAY, SB ;
HURT, NS ;
BERR, SS ;
ROSENBLATT, JM ;
MERICKEL, LW ;
HARRIS, EK .
RADIOLOGY, 1994, 190 (03) :727-736
[6]
FOCAL LIVER-LESIONS - CHARACTERIZATION WITH NONENHANCED AND DYNAMIC CONTRAST MATERIAL-ENHANCED MR-IMAGING [J].
HAMM, B ;
THOENI, RF ;
GOULD, RG ;
BERNARDINO, ME ;
LUNING, M ;
SAINI, S ;
MAHFOUZ, AE ;
TAUPITZ, M ;
WOLF, KJ .
RADIOLOGY, 1994, 190 (02) :417-423
[7]
IMAGING OF PATIENTS WITH POTENTIALLY RESECTABLE HEPATIC NEOPLASMS [J].
HARNED, RK ;
CHEZMAR, JL ;
NELSON, RC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1992, 159 (06) :1191-1194
[8]
Hepatic resection for noncolorectal, nonneuroendocrine metastases: A fifteen-year experience with ninety-six patients [J].
Harrison, LE ;
Brennan, MF ;
Newman, E ;
Fortner, JG ;
Picardo, A ;
Blumgart, LH ;
Fong, Y .
SURGERY, 1997, 121 (06) :625-632
[9]
DETECTION OF FOCAL HEPATIC MASSES - PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION WITH CT, DELAYED CT, CT DURING ARTERIAL PORTOGRAPHY, AND MR IMAGING [J].
HEIKEN, JP ;
WEYMAN, PJ ;
LEE, JKT ;
BALFE, DM ;
PICUS, D ;
BRUNT, EM ;
FLYE, MW .
RADIOLOGY, 1989, 171 (01) :47-51
[10]
HUGHES KS, 1986, SURGERY, V100, P278