Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What is the current situation in liver imaging?

  • Contrast Ultrasound: A New Modality for Abdominal Imaging
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

When evaluating focal liver disease, a variety of imaging modalities and recent techniques can be used, depending on the patient's history, the clinical suspicion to be addressed, the probability of a certain disease, as well as the availability and the radiologist's personal knowledge of a certain imaging method. Because of these factors, no rigid diagnostic algorithm can be given. Nevertheless, specific contrast agents and tailored dynamic imaging protocols are prerequisites for obtaining optimal results.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wernecke K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G et al (1991) Detection of hepatic masses in patients with carcinoma: comparative sensitivities of sonography, CT and MR imaging. AJR 157:731–739

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ohlsson B, Tranberg KG, Lundstedt C et al (1993) Detection of hepatic metastases in colorectal cancer: a prospective study of laboratory and imaging methods. Eur J Surg 159:275–281

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Leen E, Angerson WJ, Yarmenitis S et al (2002) Multi-centre clinical study evaluating the efficary of Sono Vue (BR1), a new ultrasound contrast agent in Doppler investigation of focal hepatic lesions. Eur J Radiol 41(3):200–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Albrecht T, Blomley MJK, Burns PN, et al (2003) Improved detection of hepatic metastases with pulse-inversion US during the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A: multicenter study. Radiology 227:361–370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu JB, Merton DA, Goldberg BB, et al (2002) Contrast-enhanced two-and there dimensional sonography for evaluation of intra-abdominal haemorrhage. J Ultrasound Med 21(2):161–169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ding H, Kudo M, Onda H, et al (2001) Evaluation of post treatment response of hepatocellular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced coded phase-inversion harmonic US: comparison with dynamic CT. Radiology 221(3):721–730

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Albrecht T, Hoffmann CW, Wolf KJ (2001) Ultrasound diagnosis of liver metastases with liver specific contrast medial]. Radiologe 41(1):8–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Semelka RC, Martin DR, Balci C, et al (2001) Focal liver lesions: comparison of dual-phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement. J Magn Reson Imaging 13(3):397–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Oudkerk M, Torres CG, Song B, et al (2002) Characterization of liver lesions with mangafodir trisodium-enhanced MR imaging: multicenter study comparing MR and dualphase spiral CT. Radiology 223(2):517–524

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vogl TJ, Stupavsky A, Pegios W, Hammerstingl R, Mack M, Diebold T, et al (1997) Hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation with dynamic and static gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging and histopathologic correlation. Radiology 205(3):721–728

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kang BK, Lim JH, Kim SH, et al (2003) Preoperative depiction of hepatocellular carcinoma: Ferumoxides-enhanced MR imaging versus triple-phase helical CT. Radiology 226:79–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liou J, Lee JK, Borrello JA, Brown JJ (1994) Differentiation of hepatomas from nonhepatomatous masses: use of MnDPDP-enhanced MR images. Magn Reson Imaging 12(1):71–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R, Schellenbeck M, Schumacher G, Balzer T, et al (1996) Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 200(1):59–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Muller RD, Vogel K, Neumann K, Hirche H, Barkhausen J, Stoblen F, et al (1998) [MRI with supermagnetic iron particles versus double-spiral CT in identification of malignant liver lesions]. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 168(5):436–443

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ward J, Naik KS, Guthrie JA, Wilson D, Robinson PJ (1999) Hepatic lesion detection: comparison of MR imaging after the administration of super paramagnetic iron oxide with dual-phase CT by using alternative-free response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 210(2):459–466

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Reimer P, Jahnke N, Fiebich M, Schima W, Deckers F, Marx C, et al (2000) Hepatic lesion detection and characterization: value of nonenhanced MR imaging, super paramagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MR imaging, and spiral CT-ROC analysis. Radiology 217(1):152–158

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Petersein J, Spinazzi A, Giovagnoni A, et al (2000) Focal lier lesions: evaluation of the efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine in MR imaging: a multicenter phase III clinical study. Radiology 215:727–736

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Delbeke D, Rose M, Chapman WC, et al (1996) Potimal imterpretation of F-18FDG imaging of FDG PET in the diagnosis, staging and management of pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 40:1784–1792

    Google Scholar 

  19. Vitola JV, Delbeke D, Sandler MP, et al (1996) Positron emission tomography to stage metastatic colorectal carcinoma to the liver. Am J Surg 171:21–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, et al (1994) Value of fluorine-18-FDG PET to monitor hepatocellular carcinoma after interventional therapy. J Nucl Med 35:1965–1969

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Radiology, General Hospital Leoben, Leoben, Austria

    M. M. Uggowitzer

Authors
  1. M. M. Uggowitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uggowitzer, M.M. What is the current situation in liver imaging?. Eur Radiol 13 (Suppl 3), N65–N69 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-0010-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-0010-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation