2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.116
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The role of ADC measurement in differential diagnosis of focal hepatic lesions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

5
32
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
5
32
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In spite of significant differences in the D* values between HCC and FNH, its efficacy was inferior to ADC total and D, as is generally accepted. The values in our study for ADC total (2,27), D (26,44), and f (24, 45) were in line with or similar to those results reported previously. Our D* values were out of range of other studies, especially for FNH (24,27).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In spite of significant differences in the D* values between HCC and FNH, its efficacy was inferior to ADC total and D, as is generally accepted. The values in our study for ADC total (2,27), D (26,44), and f (24, 45) were in line with or similar to those results reported previously. Our D* values were out of range of other studies, especially for FNH (24,27).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), calculated from two b values, is a quantitative analysis of diffusion that has received significant attention in clinical practice (2,3). However, the ADC calculated from a mono-exponential fit has been shown to be larger than the true diffusion in voxels, which means traditional DWI and ADC might have been overestimated for lesion analysis in daily practice.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) can be calculated from images obtained with different strengths of diffusion‐sensitizing gradients (b values) and provides a quantifiable measure of tissue diffusion and perfusion. However, even with this ADC approach differentiating between malignant and benign liver lesions is still inaccurate . This inconclusiveness is partly attributable to using region‐of‐interest (ROI)‐based techniques to obtain MRI metrics …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To date, studies assessing quantitative diffusion metrics have usually assessed the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) value of liver lesions in an attempt to distinguish benign from malignant etiologies. However, such studies have demonstrated significant overlap in mADC values between hemangiomata and liver metastases [1,7,8], limiting the ability to consistently differentiate the lesions. Similarly, using qualitative assessment of high-b-value diffusion images, readers can still mistake hemangiomata for metastases, as both lesions can maintain high signal [4,5,9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%