Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1990 Spring;15(2):93-101.
doi: 10.1007/BF01888748.

Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions

J A Barakos et al. Gastrointest Radiol. 1990 Spring.

Abstract

Two combined magnetic resonance (MR) spin-echo pulse sequences at 0.35 T were compared with dynamic bolus contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions. Each combined MR sequence was performed in a separate group of patients. The first group consisted of 76 patients in whom a moderately T1-weighted sequence (spin echo [SE] 500/30 [repetition time/echo time]) was combined with a T2-weighted sequence (SE 2000/60). In the second group, consisting of 68 patients, a more heavily T1-weighted sequence (SE 250/15) was combined with the T2-weighted sequence. All studies were evaluated in a retrospective blinded fashion, with construction of receiver operating characteristic curves. We conclude that, in detection of patients with one or more focal hepatic lesions, either combined MR sequence was comparable to CT. In the detection of individual hepatic lesions, the sensitivity of the combined MR sequence with a moderately T1-weighted sequence (SE 500/30 and 2000/60) was essentially equivalent to CT (79 vs 77%, respectively). Additionally, a combined MR sequence with a heavily T1-weighted pulse sequence (SE 250/15 and 2000/60) was not statistically different than CT (86 vs 80%, respectively). These findings were supported by the receiver operating characteristic analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983 Dec;141(6):1203-8 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 1987 Nov;165(2):399-406 - PubMed
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986 Dec;147(6):1103-16 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 1984 Jan;150(1):141-7 - PubMed
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983 Apr;140(4):695-700 - PubMed

Publication types