Modern imaging for liver metastases from colorectal tumors

被引：5

作者：

Gaa J. ^{[1
,3
]}

Wieder H. ^{[2
]}

Schwaiger M. ^{[2
]}

Rummeny E.J. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Institut für Röntgendiagnostik, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München

[2] Institut für Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München

[3] Institut für Röntgendiagnostik, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, 81675 München

来源：

Der Chirurg | 2005年 / 76卷 / 6期

关键词：

Computed tomography; Helical computed tomography; Liver metastases; Magnetic resonance imaging; Positron emission tomography; Ultrasound;

D O I：

10.1007/s00104-005-1031-0

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Cross-sectional imaging modalities such as ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT have benefited from rapid technical advances in recent years. In patients with colorectal tumors, multislice CT is the standard technique for preoperative evaluation and follow-up. It is faster than single-slice helical CT and allows for excellent 3D imaging of liver anatomy and tumor volumetry. The most accurate technique for detecting and characterizing focal liver lesions is MRI using state-of-the-art scanners and liver-specific contrast agents and should be used for preoperative evaluation of all possible surgical candidates. Whole-body FDG-PET and PET/CT are most useful in the detection of extrahepatic disease and may alter clinical management in up to 20% of patients by detecting extrahepatic spread of disease. © Springer Medizin Verlag 2005.

引用

页码：525 / 534

页数：9

共 27 条

[1]

Albrecht T., Blomley M.J.K., Burns P.N., Et al., Improved detection of hepatic metastases with pulse-inversion US during the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A: Multicenter study, Radiology, 227, (2003)

[2]

Antoch G., Jentzen W., Freudenberg L.S., Et al., Effect of oral contrast agents on computed tomography-based positron emission tomography attenuation correction in dual-modality positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging, Invest Radiol, 38, (2003)

[3]

Arulampalam T.H., Francis D.L., Visvikis D., Taylor I., Ell J.P., FDG-PET for the pre-operative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases, Eur J Surg Oncol, 30, (2004)

[4]

Beyer T., Townsend D.W., Brun T., Et al., A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology, J Nucl Med, 41, (2000)

[5]

Bluemke D.A., Paulson E.K., Choti M.A., DeSena S., Clavien P.A., Detection of hepatic lesions in candidates for surgery: Comparison of ferrumoxides-enhanced MR imaging and dual-phase helical CT, Am J Roentgenol, 175, (2000)

[6]

Braga L., Guller U., Semelka R., Modern hepatic imaging, Surg Clin N Am, 84, (2004)

[7]

Cohade C., Osman M., Leal J., Wahl R.L., Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma, J Nucl Med, 44, (2003)

[8]

Gaa J., Hatabu H., Jenkins R.L., Finn J.P., Edelman R.R., Liver masses: Replacement of conventional T2-weighted spin-echo MR imaging by breathhold MR imaging, Radiology, 200, (1996)

[9]

Goerres G.W., Ziegler S.I., Burger C., Et al., Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material, Radiology, 226, (2003)

[10]

Haider M.A., Amitai M.M., Rappaport D.C., Et al., Multi-detector row helical CT in preoperative assessment of small (<or = 1.5 cm) liver metastases: Is thinner collimation better?, Radiology, 225, (2002)

← 1 2 3 →