Loading…

Assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions

Abstract In 150 patients, 153 hepatic lesions (39 metastases, 27 hemangiomas, 26 hepatocellular carcinomas, 25 cysts, 15 adenomas, 8 focal nodular hyperplasias, 5 abscesses, 4 hamartomas, and 4 cholangiocarcinomas) were evaluated during a 24-month period. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical imaging 2015-03, Vol.39 (2), p.278-284
Main Authors: Parsai, Arman, Zerizer, Imene, Roche, Oran, Gkoutzios, Panos, Miquel, Marc E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-546f605640fb4382ca668f9feff492b5f44e3b2325aa5421404cfa06ea72642c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-546f605640fb4382ca668f9feff492b5f44e3b2325aa5421404cfa06ea72642c3
container_end_page 284
container_issue 2
container_start_page 278
container_title Clinical imaging
container_volume 39
creator Parsai, Arman
Zerizer, Imene
Roche, Oran
Gkoutzios, Panos
Miquel, Marc E
description Abstract In 150 patients, 153 hepatic lesions (39 metastases, 27 hemangiomas, 26 hepatocellular carcinomas, 25 cysts, 15 adenomas, 8 focal nodular hyperplasias, 5 abscesses, 4 hamartomas, and 4 cholangiocarcinomas) were evaluated during a 24-month period. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of benign lesions (1.994×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) were significantly higher than ADC values of malignant lesions (1.070×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ). Mean ADC value for solid benign lesions (1.143×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ± 0.214×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) was not significantly different from malignant lesions. ADC values did not allow differentiating malignant from benign solid lesions (area under the curve=0.61). ADC cutoff value threshold of 1.6×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 yielded higher accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.016
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1677939066</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0899707114002514</els_id><sourcerecordid>3620549231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-546f605640fb4382ca668f9feff492b5f44e3b2325aa5421404cfa06ea72642c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk9v1DAQxS0EotuFr1BF4sIlwX_GdnxBVBUUpEo9AGfL64y3XrJJsZNW5dPjsC1IvdDTSKPfe6OZN4ScMNowytS7XeP7OMS92zacMmioaUr7GVmxVosawJjnZEVbY2pNNTsixznvaCEM6JfkiEsQopVyRS5Pc8ac9zhM1RiqLoYw5zgO9S3G7dWEXbXMiMO2CmOq_JVLzk-Y4q9Dy7u-6uMNpqrHRZZfkRfB9Rlf39c1-f7p47ezz_XF5fmXs9OL2kump1qCCopKBTRsQLTcO6XaYAKGAIZvZABAseGCS-ckcAYUfHBUodNcAfdiTd4efK_T-HPGPNl9zB773g04ztkypbURhir1BFS1HLTg9CkocMqh0Gvy5hG6G-c0lJ0XipfdVLsYqgPl05hzwmCvUzlourOM2iVIu7MPQdolSEuNLe0iPLm3nzd77P7KHpIrwIcDgOXKNxGTzT7i4LGLCf1kuzH-f8b7RxZ_sJLpD7zD_G8fm7ml9uvyTss3lTQolwzEbwthxYA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1662056680</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Parsai, Arman ; Zerizer, Imene ; Roche, Oran ; Gkoutzios, Panos ; Miquel, Marc E</creator><creatorcontrib>Parsai, Arman ; Zerizer, Imene ; Roche, Oran ; Gkoutzios, Panos ; Miquel, Marc E</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract In 150 patients, 153 hepatic lesions (39 metastases, 27 hemangiomas, 26 hepatocellular carcinomas, 25 cysts, 15 adenomas, 8 focal nodular hyperplasias, 5 abscesses, 4 hamartomas, and 4 cholangiocarcinomas) were evaluated during a 24-month period. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of benign lesions (1.994×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) were significantly higher than ADC values of malignant lesions (1.070×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ). Mean ADC value for solid benign lesions (1.143×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ± 0.214×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) was not significantly different from malignant lesions. ADC values did not allow differentiating malignant from benign solid lesions (area under the curve=0.61). ADC cutoff value threshold of 1.6×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 yielded higher accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0899-7071</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4499</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.016</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25433855</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CLIMEB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Abscess - diagnosis ; Adenoma - diagnosis ; Assessments ; Benign ; Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic - pathology ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnosis ; Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnosis ; Cysts ; Cysts - diagnosis ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Diffusion ; Diffusion coefficient ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) ; Focal liver lesions ; Focal Nodular Hyperplasia - diagnosis ; Hamartoma - diagnosis ; Hemangioma - diagnosis ; Humans ; Imaging ; Lesions ; Liver ; Liver Diseases - diagnosis ; Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Malignant ; Metastasis ; MRI ; Neoplasms, Second Primary ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Patients ; Radiology ; Standard deviation ; Studies ; Thresholds ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Clinical imaging, 2015-03, Vol.39 (2), p.278-284</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-546f605640fb4382ca668f9feff492b5f44e3b2325aa5421404cfa06ea72642c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-546f605640fb4382ca668f9feff492b5f44e3b2325aa5421404cfa06ea72642c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25433855$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parsai, Arman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerizer, Imene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Oran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gkoutzios, Panos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miquel, Marc E</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions</title><title>Clinical imaging</title><addtitle>Clin Imaging</addtitle><description>Abstract In 150 patients, 153 hepatic lesions (39 metastases, 27 hemangiomas, 26 hepatocellular carcinomas, 25 cysts, 15 adenomas, 8 focal nodular hyperplasias, 5 abscesses, 4 hamartomas, and 4 cholangiocarcinomas) were evaluated during a 24-month period. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of benign lesions (1.994×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) were significantly higher than ADC values of malignant lesions (1.070×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ). Mean ADC value for solid benign lesions (1.143×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ± 0.214×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) was not significantly different from malignant lesions. ADC values did not allow differentiating malignant from benign solid lesions (area under the curve=0.61). ADC cutoff value threshold of 1.6×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 yielded higher accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.</description><subject>Abscess - diagnosis</subject><subject>Adenoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Benign</subject><subject>Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic - pathology</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cysts</subject><subject>Cysts - diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Diffusion</subject><subject>Diffusion coefficient</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)</subject><subject>Focal liver lesions</subject><subject>Focal Nodular Hyperplasia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Hamartoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Hemangioma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Liver Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Malignant</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Neoplasms, Second Primary</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Thresholds</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0899-7071</issn><issn>1873-4499</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkk9v1DAQxS0EotuFr1BF4sIlwX_GdnxBVBUUpEo9AGfL64y3XrJJsZNW5dPjsC1IvdDTSKPfe6OZN4ScMNowytS7XeP7OMS92zacMmioaUr7GVmxVosawJjnZEVbY2pNNTsixznvaCEM6JfkiEsQopVyRS5Pc8ac9zhM1RiqLoYw5zgO9S3G7dWEXbXMiMO2CmOq_JVLzk-Y4q9Dy7u-6uMNpqrHRZZfkRfB9Rlf39c1-f7p47ezz_XF5fmXs9OL2kump1qCCopKBTRsQLTcO6XaYAKGAIZvZABAseGCS-ckcAYUfHBUodNcAfdiTd4efK_T-HPGPNl9zB773g04ztkypbURhir1BFS1HLTg9CkocMqh0Gvy5hG6G-c0lJ0XipfdVLsYqgPl05hzwmCvUzlourOM2iVIu7MPQdolSEuNLe0iPLm3nzd77P7KHpIrwIcDgOXKNxGTzT7i4LGLCf1kuzH-f8b7RxZ_sJLpD7zD_G8fm7ml9uvyTss3lTQolwzEbwthxYA</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Parsai, Arman</creator><creator>Zerizer, Imene</creator><creator>Roche, Oran</creator><creator>Gkoutzios, Panos</creator><creator>Miquel, Marc E</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions</title><author>Parsai, Arman ; Zerizer, Imene ; Roche, Oran ; Gkoutzios, Panos ; Miquel, Marc E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-546f605640fb4382ca668f9feff492b5f44e3b2325aa5421404cfa06ea72642c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Abscess - diagnosis</topic><topic>Adenoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Benign</topic><topic>Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic - pathology</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cysts</topic><topic>Cysts - diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Diffusion</topic><topic>Diffusion coefficient</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)</topic><topic>Focal liver lesions</topic><topic>Focal Nodular Hyperplasia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Hamartoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Hemangioma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Liver Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Malignant</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Neoplasms, Second Primary</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Thresholds</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parsai, Arman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerizer, Imene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Oran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gkoutzios, Panos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miquel, Marc E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Clinical imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parsai, Arman</au><au>Zerizer, Imene</au><au>Roche, Oran</au><au>Gkoutzios, Panos</au><au>Miquel, Marc E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions</atitle><jtitle>Clinical imaging</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Imaging</addtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>278</spage><epage>284</epage><pages>278-284</pages><issn>0899-7071</issn><eissn>1873-4499</eissn><coden>CLIMEB</coden><abstract>Abstract In 150 patients, 153 hepatic lesions (39 metastases, 27 hemangiomas, 26 hepatocellular carcinomas, 25 cysts, 15 adenomas, 8 focal nodular hyperplasias, 5 abscesses, 4 hamartomas, and 4 cholangiocarcinomas) were evaluated during a 24-month period. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of benign lesions (1.994×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) were significantly higher than ADC values of malignant lesions (1.070×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ). Mean ADC value for solid benign lesions (1.143×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ± 0.214×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 ) was not significantly different from malignant lesions. ADC values did not allow differentiating malignant from benign solid lesions (area under the curve=0.61). ADC cutoff value threshold of 1.6×10 − 3 mm2 s − 1 yielded higher accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25433855</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.016</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0899-7071
ispartof Clinical imaging, 2015-03, Vol.39 (2), p.278-284
issn 0899-7071
1873-4499
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1677939066
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024
subjects Abscess - diagnosis
Adenoma - diagnosis
Assessments
Benign
Bile Duct Neoplasms - diagnosis
Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic - pathology
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnosis
Cholangiocarcinoma - diagnosis
Cysts
Cysts - diagnosis
Diagnosis, Differential
Diffusion
Diffusion coefficient
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)
Focal liver lesions
Focal Nodular Hyperplasia - diagnosis
Hamartoma - diagnosis
Hemangioma - diagnosis
Humans
Imaging
Lesions
Liver
Liver Diseases - diagnosis
Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis
Malignant
Metastasis
MRI
Neoplasms, Second Primary
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Patients
Radiology
Standard deviation
Studies
Thresholds
Tumors
title Assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T15%3A29%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20diffusion-weighted%20imaging%20for%20characterizing%20focal%20liver%20lesions&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20imaging&rft.au=Parsai,%20Arman&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=278&rft.epage=284&rft.pages=278-284&rft.issn=0899-7071&rft.eissn=1873-4499&rft.coden=CLIMEB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3620549231%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-546f605640fb4382ca668f9feff492b5f44e3b2325aa5421404cfa06ea72642c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1662056680&rft_id=info:pmid/25433855&rfr_iscdi=true