Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiological evaluation of metastases to the liver: The Emory Experience

  • Chapter
Hepatobiliary Cancer

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 69))

Abstract

There are several different imaging modalities, such as ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, which can be used to evaluate the liver for metastatic deposits. Furthermore, there are different ways to perform each of these imaging modalities. As a result, the role and sequence of various modalities and techniques can be very confusing. In devising schemes for screening the liver for metastatic disease, the goal is to detect the presence of neoplastic foci with a high degree of certainty and consistency in a noninvasive fashion. In devising schemes for the preoperative evaluation of potential candidates for hepatic resection, the goal is to determine the number, size, and location of every metastatic deposit. Invasive techniques are acceptable in this setting, since in some instances detection of additional lesions may render a patient unresectable and unnecessary surgery will be avoided. The purpose of this discussion is to elucidate the role of various noninvasive and invasive imaging techniques for screening and evaluating the liver preoperatively for metastatic disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dwyer A, Doppman JL, Adams AJ, Girton ME, Chernick SS, Cornblath M. 1983. Influence of glycogen on liver density: Computed tomography from a metabolic perspective. J Comput Assist Tomogr 7:70–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moss AA, Dean PB, Axel L, Schrumpf J, Schnyder P, Korobkin M, Shimshak RR. 1979. Computed tomography of focal hepatic lesions: A blind clinical evaluation of the effect of contrast enhancement. Radiology 131:427–430.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sager EM, Scheel B, Talle K. 1985. Increased detectability of liver metastases by the use of contrast enhancement in computed tomography. Acta Radiol 26:369–372.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tidebrant G, Asztely M, Lukes P, Tylen U. 1990. Comparison of non-enhanced, bolus enhanced and delayed scanning techniques in computed tomography of hepatic tumours. Acta Radiol 31:161–166.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bressler EL, Alpern MB, Glazer GM, Francis IR, Ensminger WD. 1987. Hypervascular hepatic metastases: CT evaluation. Radiology 162:49–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kormano M, Dean PB. 1976. Extravascular contrast material: The major component of contrast enhancement. Radiology 121:379–382.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Burgener FA, Hamlin DJ. 1983. Contrast enhancement in abdominal CT: Bolus vs. infusion. AJR 140:291–295.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heiken JP, Weyman PJ, Lee JKT, Balfe DM, Picus D, Brunt EM, Flye MW. 1989. Detection of focal hepatic masses: Prospective evaluation with CT, delayed CT, CT during arterial portography and MR imaging. Radiology 171:47–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsui O, Takashima T, Kadoya M, Suzuki M, Hirose J, Kameyama T, Choto S, Konishi H, Ida M, Yamaguchi A, Izumi R. 1987. Liver metastases from colorectal cancers: Detection with CT during arterial portography. Radiology 165:65–69.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chezmar JL, Rumancik WM, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Nelson RC, Bernardino ME. 1988. Liver and abdominal screening in patients with cancer: CT versus MR imaging. Radiology 168:43–47.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Freeny PC, Marks WM. 1986. Hepatic hemangioma: Dynamic bolus CT. AJR 147:711–719.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ney DR, Fishman EK, Hiederhuber JE. 1991. Three-dimensional vascular imaging of the liver with spiral CT. Presented at the 77th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, IL, November 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Becker JA, Gregoire A, Berdon W, Schwartz D. 1968. Vicarious excretion of Urographic media. Radiology 90:243–248.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bernardino ME, Erwin BC, Steinberg HV, Baumgartner BR, Torres WE, Gedgaudas-McClees RK. 1986. Delayed hepatic CT scanning: Increased confidence and improved detection of hepatic metastases. Radiology 159:71–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Peterson JE, Bernardino ME. 1989. Contrast-enhanced CT of the liver and spleen: Comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents. AJR 153:973–976.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stark DS, Wittenberg J, Edelman RR, Middleton MS, Saini S, Butch RJ, Brady TJ, Ferrucci JT. 1986. Detection of hepatic metastases: Analysis of pulse sequence performance in MR imaging. Radiology 159:365–370.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Foley WD, Kneeland JB, Cates JD, Kellman GM, Lawson TL, Middleton WD, Hendrick RE. 1987. Contrast optimization for the detection of focal hepatic lesions by MR imaging at 1.5 T. AJR 149:1155–1160.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Sugarbaker PH, Bernardino ME. 1989. Hepatic tumors: Comparison of CT during arterial portography, delayed CT, and MR imaging for preoperative evaluation. Radiology 172:27–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Vassiliades VG, Foley WD, Alarcon J, Lawson T, Erickson S, Kneeland JB, Steinberg HV, Bernardino ME. 1991. Hepatic metastases: CT versus MR imaging at 1.5 T. Gastrointest Radiol 16:159–163.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rummeny EJ, Wernecke K, Saini S, Vassallo P, Weismann W, Oestmann JW, Kivelitz D, Reers B, Reiser MF, Peters PE. 1992. Comparison between high-field-strength MR imaging and CT for screening of hepatic metastases: A receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 182:879–886.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Kroeker MA, Greenberg HM, Simm FC, Minuk GY, Kroeker RM, Micflikier AB. 1992. Focal liver disease: Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and T2-weighted fat-suppressed, FLASH, and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 184:687–694.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stark DD, Felder RC, Wittenberg J, Saini S, Butch RJ, White ME, Edelman RR, Mueller PR, Simeone JF, Cohen AM, Brady TJ, Ferrucci JT. 1985. Magnetic resonance imaging of cavernous hemangioma of the liver: Tissue-specific characterization. AJR 145:213–222.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mattison GR, Glazer GM, Quint LE, Francis IR, Bree RL, Ensminger WD. 1987. MR imaging of hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia: Characterization and distinction from primary malignant hepatic tumors. AJR 148:711–715.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ohtomo K, Itai Y, Yoshikawa K, Kokubo T, Yashiro N, Iio M, Furukawa K. 1987. Hepatic tumors: Dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 163:27–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Newberry LB, Malko JA, Gedgaudas-McClees RK, Bernardino ME. 1991. Manganese dipyridoxal diphosphate: Effect of dose, time and pulse sequence on hepatic enhancement in rats. Invest Radiol 26:569–673.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hamm B, Vogl TJ, Branding G, Schnell B, Taupitz M, Wolf K-J, Lessner J. 1992. Focal liver lesions: MR imaging with Mn-DPDP — initial clinical results in 40 patients. Radiology 182:167–174.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Stark DD, Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Hahn PF, Saini S, Todd LE, Wittenberg J, Ferrucci JT. 1988. Superparamagnetic iron oxide: Clinical application as a contrast agent for MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 168:297–301.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Matsui O, Takashima T, Kadoya M, Ida M, Suzuki M, Kitagawa K, Inoue K, Konishi H, Itoh H. 1985. Dynamic computed tomography during arterial portography: The most sensitive examination for small hepatocellular carcinomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr 9:19–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dodd GD, Miller WJ, Baron RL, Skolnick ML, Campbell WL. 1992. Detection of malignant tumors in end-stage cirrhotic livers: Efficacy of sonography as a screening technique. AJR 159:727–733.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ackerman NB, Lien WM, Kondi ES, Silverman NA. 1969. The blood supply of experimental liver metastases: I. Distribution of hepatic artery and portal vein blood to’ small’ and ‘large’ tumors. Surgery 66:1067–1072.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Freeny PC, Marks WM. 1986. Hepatic perfusion abnormalities during CT angiography: Detection and interpretation. Radiology 159:685–691.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Nelson RC, Thompson GH, Chezmar JL, Harned RK, Fernandez MP. 1992. CT during arterial portography: Diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 12:705–718.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sugarbaker PH, Nelson RC, Murray DR, Chezmar JL, Bernardino ME. 1990. A segmental approach to computerized tomographic portography for hepatic resection. Surg Gynecol Obstet 171:189–195.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL, Sugarbaker PH, Murray DR, Bernardino ME. 1990. Preoperative localization for focal liver lesions to specific liver segments: Utility of CT during arterial portography. Radiology 176:89–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Soyer P, Roche A, Gad M, Shapeero L, Breittmayer F, Elias D, Lasser P, Rougier P, Levesque M. 1991. Preoperative segmental localization of hepatic metastases: Utility of three-dimensional CT during arterial portography. Radiology 180:653–658.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Igawa S, Sakai K, Kinoshita H, Hirohashi K. 1985. Intraoperative sonography: Clinical usefulness in liver surgery. Radiology 156:473–478.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Rendon C. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Cancer Institute, Washington Hospital Center, Washington D.C., USA

    Paul H. Sugarbaker M.D., F.A.C.S.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nelson, R.C. (1994). Radiological evaluation of metastases to the liver: The Emory Experience . In: Sugarbaker, P.H. (eds) Hepatobiliary Cancer. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 69. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2604-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2604-9_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-6115-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-2604-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation