Signal characteristics of focal liver lesions on double echo T2-weighted conventional spin echo MRI: observer performance versus quantitative measurements of T2 relaxation times.

PURPOSE The purpose of this work was to evaluate the ability of expert readers to differentiate benign from malignant liver lesions based on visual assessment of lesion signal intensity on double echo T2-weighted conventional spin echo (CSE) MR images and to compare reader performance with quantitative measurements of T2 relaxation times. METHOD Sixty-seven MR examinations demonstrating 85 liver lesions (37 hemangiomas, 32 malignancies, 15 cysts, and 1 focal nodular hyperplasia) on double echo T2-weighted CSE sequences (TR 3,600 ms/TE 50, 160 ms) were qualitatively reviewed by three independent readers. T2 relaxation times were calculated for each lesion. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of expert readers were compared with calculated T2 relaxation times. RESULTS T2 values performed significantly better than subjective reader analysis for liver lesion characterization (area under ROC = 0.93 vs. 0.81, 0.78, and 0.75; p < 0.0001). With use of a T2 threshold of 125 ms, the sensitivity of T2 values for malignant lesions was 100%, specificity 71%, and accuracy 84%. By comparison, the sensitivity of the three readers for malignant lesions was 76-83%, with a specificity of 61-72% and an overall accuracy of 71-80%. CONCLUSION Despite expert reader analyses, subjective evaluations of liver lesion signal characteristics are prone to inaccuracy and lack certainty and consistency when intermediate TEs (50/160 ms) are used. Quantitative measurements of T2 relaxation times should be performed to accurately and confidently differentiate benign from malignant liver lesions. Use of a higher T2 threshold than previously recommended is required to avoid misclassification of malignancies.

[1]  D. Mitchell,et al.  Abdominal MR imaging: evaluation of a fast spin-echo sequence. , 1994, Radiology.

[2]  W. Meyers,et al.  Hepatic hemangiomas vs metastases: MR differentiation at 1.5 T. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  T. Egglin,et al.  Differentiation between hemangiomas and metastases of the liver with ultrafast MR imaging: preliminary results with T2 calculations. , 1991, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  R. Weissleder,et al.  Differentiation of hepatic metastases from hepatic hemangiomas and cysts by using MR imaging. , 1988, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  J. Wittenberg,et al.  Hepatic tumors: quantitative tissue characterization with MR imaging. , 1990, Radiology.

[6]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Single-shot T2-weighted MR imaging of the upper abdomen: preliminary experience with double-echo HASTE technique. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Hepatic hemangiomas and malignant tumors: improved differentiation with heavily T2-weighted conventional spin-echo MR imaging. , 1994, Radiology.

[8]  R. Edelman,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of cavernous hemangioma of the liver: tissue-specific characterization. , 1985, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  S. Mirowitz,et al.  T2-weighted MR imaging of the abdomen: fast spin-echo vs conventional spin-echo sequences. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Distinction of hepatic cavernous hemangioma from hepatic metastases with MR imaging. , 1988, Radiology.

[11]  M. Cohen,et al.  Value of T1 and T2 relaxation times from echoplanar MR imaging in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions. , 1993, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  D G Mitchell,et al.  Hepatic lesions: discrimination of nonsolid, benign lesions from solid, malignant lesions with heavily T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[13]  P R Mueller,et al.  Focal liver lesions: characterization with conventional spin-echo versus fast spin-echo T2-weighted MR imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[14]  S. F. Quinn,et al.  Hepatic cavernous hemangiomas: simple diagnostic sign with dynamic bolus CT. , 1992, Radiology.

[15]  K. Ohtomo,et al.  MR differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from cavernous hemangioma: complementary roles of FLASH and T2 values. , 1989, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  B. I. Choi,et al.  Small hepatocellular carcinoma versus small cavernous hemangioma: differentiation with MR imaging at 2.0 T. , 1990, Radiology.

[17]  D G Mitchell,et al.  Fast MR imaging techniques: Impact in the abdomen , 1996, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[18]  C F Hildebolt,et al.  Statistical analysis with receiver operating characteristic curves. , 1992, Radiology.

[19]  M S Roos,et al.  Effects of slice selection and diffusion on T2 measurement , 1987, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  K. Ohtomo,et al.  Hepatic tumors: differentiation by transverse relaxation time (T2) of magnetic resonance imaging. , 1985, Radiology.

[21]  S. Saini,et al.  Differentiation between small hepatic hemangiomas and metastases on MR images: importance of size-specific quantitative criteria. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  J C Gore,et al.  Errors in the measurements of T2 using multiple‐echo MRI techniques. I. Effects of radiofrequency pulse imperfections , 1986, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[23]  J. Heiken,et al.  Cavernous hemangioma of the liver: assessment of MR tissue specificity with a simplified T2 index. , 1990, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[24]  M Lüning,et al.  Focal liver lesions: characterization with nonenhanced and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging. , 1994, Radiology.

[25]  K. Ohtomo,et al.  Hepatocellular carcinoma and cavernous hemangioma: differentiation with MR imaging. Efficacy of T2 values at 0.35 and 1.5 T. , 1988, Radiology.

[26]  M. Cohen,et al.  Echoplanar MR imaging of the liver in patients with focal hepatic lesions: quantitative analysis of images made with various pulse sequences. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.