Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CT und MRT der Leber: wann, was, warum?

CT and MRI of the liver: when, what, why?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Detektion und die differenzialdiagnostische Abklärung von Leberpathologien spielen in nahezu allen medizinischen Disziplinen eine bedeutende Rolle. Ihre Vorteile in Hinblick auf Weichteilkontrast, die Verfügbarkeit leberspezifischer Kontrastmittel und funktionelle Techniken machen die MRT zum bildgebenden Verfahren der Wahl für die gezielte Abklärung fokaler oder diffuser Leberpathologien. Neben höheren Detektionsraten und besseren Differenzierungsmöglichkeiten stehen in der MRT funktionelle Techniken – insbesondere die Diffusionsbildgebung – zur Verfügung, die eine Prognoseabschätzung und die frühe Beurteilung von Therapieansprechen bei malignen Leberläsionen erlauben. Die CT ist bei der Detektion traumatischer Leberverletzungen Bildgebungsverfahren der Wahl; trotz der auch in der CT zunehmend verfügbaren funktionellen Techniken bleibt die MRT in der Leberbildgebung weiterhin überlegen.

Abstract

The detection and differential diagnostic clarification of liver pathologies play an important role in almost all medical disciplines. Because of its superior soft tissue contrast, the availability of liver-specific contrast agents and functional techniques, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the method of choice for the diagnostics of focal and diffuse liver pathologies. In addition to its superior detection and differentiation capabilities, MRI can provide prognostic information and enable early assessment of the therapy response for malignant liver lesions using functional techniques, especially diffusion imaging. Computed tomography (CT) is the imaging method of choice for the detection of traumatic liver injury. Despite the increasing availability of functional techniques in CT, MRI remains the overall modality of choice in liver imaging.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Achiam MP, Logager VB, Skjoldbye B et al (2016) Preoperative CT versus diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the liver in patients with rectal cancer; a prospective randomized trial. PeerJ 4:e1532

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed N, Vernick JJ (2011) Management of liver trauma in adults. J Emerg Trauma Shock 4:114–119

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Attenberger UI, Morelli J, Budjan J et al (2015) Fifty years of technological innovation: potential and limitations of current technologies in abdominal magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Invest Radiol 50:584–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boas FE, Brody LA, Erinjeri JP et al (2016) Quantitative measurements of enhancement on preprocedure triphasic CT can predict response of colorectal liver metastases to radioembolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:671–675

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bottcher J, Hansch A, Pfeil A et al (2013) Detection and classification of different liver lesions: comparison of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI versus multiphasic spiral CT in a clinical single centre investigation. Eur J Radiol 82:1860–1869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cassidy FH, Yokoo T, Aganovic L et al (2009) Fatty liver disease: MR imaging techniques for the detection and quantification of liver steatosis. Radiographics 29:231–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cho ES, Choi JY (2015) MRI features of hepatocellular carcinoma related to biologic behavior. Korean J Radiol 16:449–464

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi JY, Kim MJ, Park YN et al (2011) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with histological characteristics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:399–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chou R, Cuevas C, Fu R et al (2014) Imaging techniques for the diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chou R, Cuevas C, Fu R et al (2015) Imaging techniques for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 162:697–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chung YE, Kim MJ, Kim YE et al (2013) Characterization of incidental liver lesions: comparison of multidetector CT versus Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. PLOS ONE 8:e66141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer MA, Kartalis N, Grigoriadis A et al (2015) Perfusion computed tomography for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur Radiol 25:3123–3132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Floriani I, Torri V, Rulli E et al (2010) Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:19–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Geisel D, Ludemann L, Hamm B et al (2015) Imaging-based liver function tests – past, present and future. Rofo 187:863–871

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glover C, Douse P, Kane P et al (2002) Accuracy of investigations for asymptomatic colorectal liver metastases. Dis Colon Rectum 45:476–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gordic S, Puippe GD, Krauss B et al (2016) Correlation between dual-energy and perfusion CT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 280:78–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ippolito D, Bonaffini PA, Capraro C et al (2013) Viable residual tumor tissue after radiofrequency ablation treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation with CT perfusion. Abdom Imaging 38:502–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim JH, Joo I, Kim TY et al (2016) Diffusion-related MRI parameters for assessing early treatment response of liver metastases to cytotoxic therapy in colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:W26–W32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kudo M, Zheng RQ, Kim SR et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of imaging for liver cirrhosis compared to histologically proven liver cirrhosis. A multicenter collaborative study. Intervirology 51(Suppl 1):17–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee SW, Park SH, Kim KW et al (2007) Unenhanced CT for assessment of macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donors: comparison of visual grading with liver attenuation index. Radiology 244:479–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee JS et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 275:97–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lv WF, Han JK, Cheng DL et al (2015) CT perfusion imaging can predict patients’ survival and early response to transarterial chemo – Lipiodol infusion for liver metastases from colorectal cancers. Korean J Radiol 16:810–820

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Marquez HP, Puippe G, Mathew RP et al (2017) CT perfusion for early response evaluation of radiofrequency ablation of focal liver lesions: first experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40:90–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mcgehee M, Kier R, Cohn SM et al (1993) Comparison of MRI with postcontrast CT for the evaluation of acute abdominal trauma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17:410–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Michaely HJ, Morelli JN, Budjan J et al (2013) CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT)-volume-interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE): a new technique for fast time-resolved dynamic 3‑dimensional imaging of the abdomen with high spatial resolution. Invest Radiol 48:590–597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Morelli JN, Michaely HJ, Meyer MM et al (2013) Comparison of dynamic and liver-specific Gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI versus apparent diffusion coefficients. PLOS ONE 8:e61898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Morsbach F, Pfammatter T, Reiner CS et al (2013) Computed tomographic perfusion imaging for the prediction of response and survival to transarterial radioembolization of liver metastases. Invest Radiol 48:787–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 257:674–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Park SH, Kim PN, Kim KW et al (2006) Macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donors: use of CT for quantitative and qualitative assessment. Radiology 239:105–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Park MJ, Kim YK, Lee MW et al (2012) Small hepatocellular carcinomas: improved sensitivity by combining gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging patterns. Radiology 264:761–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Petitclerc L, Sebastiani G, Gilbert G et al (2016) Liver fibrosis: review of current imaging and MRI quantification techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.1002/jmri.25550

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ratziu V, Goodman Z, Sanyal A (2015) Current efforts and trends in the treatment of NASH. J Hepatol 62:S65–S75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Reeder SB, Sirlin CB (2010) Quantification of liver fat with magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:337–357

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Rekhi S, Anderson SW, Rhea JT et al (2010) Imaging of blunt pancreatic trauma. Emerg Radiol 17:13–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Runge VM, Richter JK, Heverhagen JT (2017) Speed in clinical magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol 52:1–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schulz A, Viktil E, Godt JC et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of CT, MRI and PET/CT in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: the superiority of MRI. Acta Radiol 57:1040–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Springer F, Machann J, Claussen CD et al (2010) Liver fat content determined by magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. World J Gastroenterol 16:1560–1566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL (2014) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:433–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vilgrain V, Esvan M, Ronot M et al (2016) A meta-analysis of diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases. Eur Radiol 26:4595–4615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yamamoto F, Pu Y, Igimi H et al (1993) MR imaging of traumatic hepatic laceration: evaluation and course of healing after surgery. Abdom Imaging 18:253–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yoneda N, Matsui O, Kitao A et al (2016) Benign hepatocellular nodules: hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging based on molecular background. Radiographics 36:2010–2027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yoon JH, Choi JI, Jeong YY et al (2016) Pre-treatment estimation of future remnant liver function using gadoxetic acid MRI in patients with HCC. J Hepatol 65:1155–1162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhong X, Nickel MD, Kannengiesser SA et al (2014) Liver fat quantification using a multi-step adaptive fitting approach with multi-echo GRE imaging. Magn Reson Med 72:1353–1365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Klinische Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim der Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1–3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland

    J. Budjan, S. O. Schoenberg & U. I. Attenberger

Authors
  1. J. Budjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. O. Schoenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. I. Attenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Budjan.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

J. Budjan, S.O. Schoenberg und U.I. Attenberger geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Budjan, J., Schoenberg, S.O. & Attenberger, U.I. CT und MRT der Leber: wann, was, warum?. Radiologe 57, 366–372 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0232-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0232-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation