Skip to main content
Log in

Focal hepatic lesions: Detection by dynamic and delayed computed tomography versus short TE/TR spin echo and fast field echo magnetic resonance imaging

  • Published:
Gastrointestinal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Eighteen patients with focal hepatic lesions were evaluated with two computed tomographic (CT) techniques including dynamic sequential bolus contrast CT and delayed contrast CT, and 3 magnetic resonance (MR) techniques including a spin echo pulse sequence with TE/TR of 21/310 msec and 2 fast field echo sequences using a TE/TR of 15/300 msec and 80° flip angle (T1-weighted) and TE/TR of 15/500 msec and 10–20° flip angle (T2-weighted). We concluded that CT, using delayed contrast and dynamic sequential bolus contrast techniques, was consistently superior to the 3 MR pulse sequences used on our imagers in terms of number of lesions detected, lesion-to-liver contrast, and quality of scan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reinig JW, Dwyer AJ, Miller DL, White M, Frank JA, Sugarbaker PH, Chang AE, Doppman JL: Superiority of MRI over CT for the detection of liver metastases.Radiology 162:43–47, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wittenberg J, Stark DD, Butch RJ, Ferrucci JT Jr: Comparative accuracy of MRI and CT for liver metastases. Presented at the 5th Annual Meeting of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, 1986

  3. Moss A, Goldberg HI, Stark DD, Davis PL, Margulis AR, Kaufman L, Crooks L: Hepatic tumors: magnetic resonance and CT appearance.Radiology 150:141–147, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt HC, Tscholakoff D, Hricak H, Higgins CB: MR image contrast and relaxation times of solid tumors in the chest, abdomen, and pelvis.J Comput Assist Tomogr 9:737–748, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kiricuta I Jr, Simplaceau V: Tissue water content and nuclear magnetic resonance in normal and tumor tissues.Cancer Res 35:1164–1167, 1975

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernardino ME, Small W, Goldstein J, Sewell CW, Sones PJ, Gedgandas-McClees K, Galambos JT, Wenger J, Cassarella WJ: Multiple NMR T2 relaxation values in human liver tissue.AJR 141:1203–1208, 1983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stark DD, Wittenberg J, Edelman RR, Middleton MS, Saini S, Butch RJ, Brady TJ, Ferrucci JT Jr: Detection of hepatic metastases: analysis of pulse sequence performance in MR imaging.Radiology 159:365–370, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moss AA, Schrumpf J, Schnyder P, Korobkin M, Shimsshak RR: Computed tomography of focal hepatic lesions: a blind clinical evaluation of the effect of contrast enhancement.Radiology 131:427–430, 1979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burgener FA, Hamlin DJ: Contrast enhancement of focal hepatic lesions in CT: effect of size and histology.AJR 140:297–301, 1983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Foley WD, Berland LL, Lawson TL, Smith DF, Thorsen MK: Contrast enhancement technique for dynamic hepatic computed tomographic scanning.Radiology 147:797–803, 1983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Berland LL, Lawson TL, Foley WD, Melrose BL, Chintapalli KN, Taylor AJ: Comparison of pre- and post contrast CT in hepatic masses.AJR 138:853–858, 1982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Burgener FA, Hamlin DJ: Contrast enhancement in abdominal CT: bolus vs. infusion.AJR 137:351–358, 1981

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Phillips VM, Erwin BC, Bernardino ME: Delayed iodine scanning of the liver: a promising CT technique.J Comput Assist Tomogr 9:415–416, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Perkerson RB Jr, Erwin BC, Baumgartner BR, Phillips VM, Torres WE, Clements JL, Gedgaudas-McClees RK, Bernardino ME: CT densities in delayed iodine hepatic scanning.Radiology 155:445–446, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bernardino ME, Erwein BC, Steinberg HV, Baumgartner BR, Torres WE, Gedgaudas-McClees RK: Delayed hepatic CT scanning: increased confidence and improved detection of hepatic metastases.Radiology 159:71–74, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson RC, Malko JA, Long RC Jr, Coumans J, Bernardino ME: The relation of T1 and T2 contrast to flip angle in fast field echo MR imaging. Presented at the 5th Annual Meeting of the Society of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, San Antonio, 1986

  17. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH:Applied Linear Statistical Models 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1985, pp 950–951

    Google Scholar 

  18. Glazer GM, Aisen AM, Francis IR, Gross BH, Gyves JW, Ensminger WD: Evaluation of focal hepatic masses: a comparative study of MRI and CT.Gastrointest Radiol 11:263–268, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heiken JP, Lee JKT, Glazer HS, Ling D: Hepatic metastases studied with MR and CT.Radiology 156:423–427, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelson, R.C., Chezmar, J.L., Steinberg, H.V. et al. Focal hepatic lesions: Detection by dynamic and delayed computed tomography versus short TE/TR spin echo and fast field echo magnetic resonance imaging. Gastrointest Radiol 13, 115–122 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889039

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889039

Key words

Navigation