Skip to main content
Log in

Ultrasound, CT, and MRI comparison in primary and secondary tumors of the liver

  • Published:
Gastrointestinal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thirty-five patients with surgically removed or percutaneous biopsy-proven tumors were examined by ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This retrospective study describes the appearance of the primary tumors and m'etastases and compares the sensitivity and specificity of the 3 imaging methods.

Ultrasound, CT, and MRI examinations as well as clinical, operative, and/or histologic data were available for all 35 patients. Paramagnetic contrast agent gadolinium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA) was used in 23 patients and a short TI inversion recovery MRI sequence was used in 23 patients, in addition to various spin echo MRI sequences. Thirteen patients were examined using both Gd-DTPA and the short TI inversion recovery sequence. Our comparative study-based on the following criteria: detection, size, location of the tumor, and portal vein involvement and bile duct dilatation — demonstrated an advantage of MRI over ultrasound in 16 of 35 cases, equal results in 17 of 35 cases and a disadvantage of MRI compared to ultrasound in 2 of 35 cases. With the identical criteria, MRI proved to be more informative than CT in 10 of 35 cases, equal in 21 of 35 cases, and less informative in 4 of 35 cases.

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. Alderson PO, Adams DF, McNeil BJ, Sanders R, Siegelman SS, Finberg HJ, Hessel SJ, Abrams HL: Computed tomography, ultrasound and scintigraphy of the liver in patients with colon or breast carcinoma: a prospective comparison.Radiology 149:225–230, 1983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernardino ME, Green B: Ultrasonic evaluation of chemotherapeutic response in hepatic metastases.Radiology 133:437–441, 1979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Holm J, Jacobsen B: Accuracy of dynamic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of malignant liver lesions.J Ultrasound Med 5:1–4, 1986

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moss AA, Dean PB, Axel L, Goldberg HI, Glazer GM, Friedman MA: Dynamic CT of hepatic masses with intravenous and intraarterial contrast material.AJR 138:847–852, 1982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Doyle FH, Pennock JM, Banks LM, McDonnell MJ, Bydder GM, Steiner RE, Young IR, Clarke GJ, Pasmore T, Gilderdale DJ: Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: initial experience.AJR 138:193–200, 1982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kressel HY, Axel L, Thickman D, Alavi A, Pollack H, Arger P, Edelstein W, Bottomley P, Redington R, Baum S: NMR imaging of the abdomen at 0.12 T: initial clinical experience with a resistive magnet.AJR 141:1179–1186, 1983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moss AA, Goldberg HI, Stark DB, Davies PL, Margulis AR, Kaufman L, Crooks LE: Hepatic tumors: magnetic resonance and CT appearance.Radiology 150:141–147, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ohtomo K, Itai Y, Furui S, Yashro N, Yoshikawa K, Ilio M: Hepatic tumors: differentiation by transverse relaxation time (T2) of MRI.Radiology 155:421–423, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Buonocore E, Borkowski GP, Pawlicek W, Ngo F: NMR imaging of the abdomen: technical considerations.AJR 141:1171–1178, 1983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernardino ME, Small W, Goldstein J, Sewell CW, Sones PJ, Gedgaudas-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 

  12. National Radiological Protection Board: Ad Hoc Advisory Group on NMR Imaging.Br J Radiol 56:974–977, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  13. Young IR, Burl M, Clarke GJ: Magnetic resonance properties of hydrogen: imaging the posterior fossa.AJR 137:895–901, 1981

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bydder GM, Young IR: MR imaging: clinical use of the inversion recovery sequence.J Comput Assist Tomogr 9:659–675, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carr DH, Brown J, Bydder GM, Steiner RE, Weinmann H-J, Hall AS, Young IR: Gadolinium-DTPA as a contrast agent in MRI: initial clinical experience in 20 patients.AJR 143:215–224, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bailes DR, Gilderdale DJ, Bydder GM, Collins AG, Firmin DN: Respiratory ordered phase encoding (ROPE): a method for reducing respiratory motion artefact in MRI.J Comput Assist Tomogr 9:835–838, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dooms GC, Kerlan RK, Hricak H, Wall SD, Margulis AR: Cholangiocarcinoma: imaging by MR.Radiology 159:89–94, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee JKT, Heiken JP, Dixon WT: Demonstration of hepatic metastases by proton spectroscopic imaging.Radiology 156:429–433, 1985

    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

Curati, W.L., Halevy, A., Gibson, R.N. et al. Ultrasound, CT, and MRI comparison in primary and secondary tumors of the liver. Gastrointest Radiol 13, 123–128 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889040

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889040

Key words

Navigation