Open AccessDiagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance, computed tomography and contrast enhanced ultrasound in radiological multimodality assessment of peribiliary liver metastases
Author(s) -
Vincenza Granata,
Roberta Fusco,
Orlando Catalano,
Antonio Avallone,
Raffaéle Palaia,
Gerardo Botti,
Fabiana Tatangelo,
Francescopaolo Granata,
Marco Cascella,
Francesco Izzo
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0179951
Subject(s) - medicine , radiology , magnetic resonance imaging , contrast enhanced ultrasound , echogenicity , ultrasound , lesion , tomography , nuclear medicine , differential diagnosis , bile duct , diffusion mri , pathology , surgery
Purpose We compared diagnostic performance of Magnetic Resonance (MR), Computed Tomography (CT) and Ultrasound (US) with (CEUS) and without contrast medium to identify peribiliary metastasis. Methods We identified 35 subjects with histological proven peribiliary metastases who underwent CEUS, CT and MR study. Four radiologists evaluated the presence of peribiliary lesions, using a 4-point confidence scale. Echogenicity, density and T1-Weigthed (T1-W), T2-W and Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) signal intensity as well as the enhancement pattern during contrast studies on CEUS, CT and MR so as hepatobiliary-phase on MRI was assessed. Results All lesions were detected by MR. CT detected 8 lesions, while US/CEUS detected one lesion. According to the site of the lesion, respect to the bile duct and hepatic parenchyma: 19 (54.3%) were periductal, 15 (42.8%) were intra-periductal and 1 (2.8%) was periductal-intrahepatic. According to the confidence scale MRI had the best diagnostic performance to assess the lesion. CT obtained lower diagnostic performance. There was no significant difference in MR signal intensity and contrast enhancement among all metastases (p>0.05). There was no significant difference in CT density and contrast enhancement among all metastases (p>0.05). Conclusions MRI is the method of choice for biliary tract tumors but it does not allow a correct differential diagnosis among different histological types of metastasis. The presence of biliary tree dilatation without hepatic lesions on CT and US/CEUS study may be an indirect sign of peribiliary metastases and for this reason the patient should be evaluated by MRI.