Leslie D F, Johnson C D, MacCarty R L, Ward E M, Ilstrup D M, Harmsen W S
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Dec;165(6):1403-6. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.6.7484574.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of globular enhancement for differentiating hepatic hemangiomas from hypervascular metastases on single-pass, contrast-enhanced CT scans. Globular enhancement was defined as enhancing nodules less than 1 cm seen within a lesion.
Fifty CT examinations were retrospectively evaluated in a blinded fashion by two independent reviewers. The CT studies were done with nonhelical technique after the IV injection of 150 ml of contrast material. The series included 25 patients with histologically proven hypervascular hepatic metastases (carcinoid, islet cell carcinoma, and leiomyosarcoma) and 25 patients with clinically proven hepatic hemangiomas. Patients with hemangiomas were clinically stable for at least 2 years after the CT studies. A single lesion was isolated from the first-pass, contrast-enhanced portion of each examination; the remainder of the examination was excluded from the review to minimize reviewer bias. Each lesion was evaluated for (1) the presence or absence of globular enhancement (defined as enhancing nodules less than 1 cm seen within a lesion), (2) the density of globular enhancement relative to that of the aorta, (3) the degree of border definition (well or poorly marginated), and (4) the presence or absence of a hypodense halo. A diagnostic impression was then recorded for each lesion.
Globular enhancement was 88% sensitive and 84-100% specific for differentiating hepatic hemangiomas from hypervascular metastases (p < .001). A mean of 62% of hemangiomas showed globular enhancement isodense relative to that of the aorta; none of the metastases showed globular, isodense enhancement. The majority of the metastases showed nonglobular enhancement (mean, 92%). The reviewers showed 84% agreement in the identification of (1) globular enhancement in hemangiomas, (2) lack of globular enhancement in metastases, and (3) globular enhancement in the combined set of all lesions. Neither the presence of a hypodense halo nor the degree of border definition was significant in distinguishing between the two groups of lesions. The reviewers showed 96% agreement in the categorization of metastases and 76% agreement in the categorization of hemangiomas. There was 86% agreement in the categorization of all lesions. Overall, reviewers diagnosed a mean of 89% of lesions correctly. A mean of 98% of metastases and a mean of 80% of hemangiomas were diagnosed correctly.
Globular enhancement is highly sensitive (88%) and specific (84-100%) for differentiating hepatic hemangiomas from hypervascular metastases on single-pass, contrast-enhanced CT scans.
本研究的目的是评估在单期对比增强CT扫描中,球形强化对于鉴别肝血管瘤与富血供转移瘤的敏感性和特异性。球形强化定义为在病灶内可见的直径小于1 cm的强化结节。
两名独立的阅片者以盲法对50例CT检查进行回顾性评估。CT检查采用非螺旋技术,静脉注射150 ml对比剂。该系列包括25例经组织学证实的富血供肝转移瘤(类癌、胰岛细胞瘤和平滑肌肉瘤)患者和25例经临床证实的肝血管瘤患者。血管瘤患者在CT检查后临床稳定至少2年。从每次检查的单期对比增强部分分离出单个病灶;检查的其余部分被排除在评估之外,以尽量减少阅片者偏倚。对每个病灶评估以下内容:(1)是否存在球形强化(定义为在病灶内可见的直径小于1 cm的强化结节);(2)球形强化相对于主动脉的密度;(3)边界清晰度(边界清晰或模糊);(4)是否存在低密度晕。然后记录每个病灶的诊断印象。
在鉴别肝血管瘤与富血供转移瘤方面,球形强化的敏感性为88%,特异性为84% - 100%(p < 0.001)。平均62%的血管瘤表现为与主动脉等密度的球形强化;转移瘤均未表现出球形等密度强化。大多数转移瘤表现为非球形强化(平均92%)。阅片者在以下方面的识别一致性为84%:(1)血管瘤中的球形强化;(2)转移瘤中缺乏球形强化;(3)所有病灶组合中的球形强化。低密度晕的存在与否以及边界清晰度在区分两组病灶方面均无显著意义。阅片者在转移瘤分类方面的一致性为96%,在血管瘤分类方面的一致性为76%。所有病灶分类的一致性为86%。总体而言,阅片者正确诊断的病灶平均为89%。转移瘤正确诊断的平均比例为98%,血管瘤正确诊断的平均比例为80%。
在单期对比增强CT扫描中,球形强化对于鉴别肝血管瘤与富血供转移瘤具有高度敏感性(88%)和特异性(84% - 100%)。