Quadruple-phase MDCT of the liver in patients with suspected hepatocellular carcinoma: Effect of contrast material flow rate

OBJECTIVE. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of contrast material flow rate (3 mL/sec vs 5 mL/sec) on the detection and visualization of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with MDCT and the safety profile of iodixanol at different injection rates. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In a prospective, randomized multicenter trial, 97 patients (83 men and 14 women, with a mean age of 64 years) suspected of having HCC underwent quadruple-phase (double arterial, portal venous, delayed phase) 4- 16-MDCT. Patients were randomized to receive iodixanol, 320 mg I/mL (1.5 mL/kg body weight), at a flow rate of 3 mL/sec (48 patients) or 5 mL/sec (49 patients). Qualitative (lesion detection, image quality) and quantitative (liver and aortic enhancement, tumor-liver contrast) analyses and safety assessment were performed. RESULTS. Overall, 145 HCCs were detected in the 5 mL/sec group and 100 HCCs in the 3 mL/sec group (p < 0.05). More lesions equal to or less than I cm were detected at 5 mL/sec (33 vs 16 lesions). The late arterial phase showed significantly more lesions than the early, arterial phase (133 vs 100 and 96 vs 67 lesions, respectively, p < 0.0001). Hyperattenuating HCCs were better visualized in the late arterial phase at 5 mL/sec (excellent visualization: 54% vs 27%). Using a flow of 5 mL/sec did not increase the rate of patient discomfort or contrast media-related adverse events. Most discomfort in both groups was of mild intensity and there was no severe discomfort. CONCLUSION. For detection of HCC with MDCT, a higher flow rate of 5 mL/sec is recommended. Visualization of hyperattenuating HCC is improved with no greater discomfort or adverse events

Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): Interim results

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, ultrasonography (US), and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for screening women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer and report interim results, with pathologic findings as standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board of each center approved the research; informed written consent was obtained. CBE, mammography, US, and MR imaging were performed for yearly screening of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, or women enrolled because of a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer (three or more events in first- or second-degree relatives in either maternal or paternal line; these included breast cancer in women younger than 60 years, ovarian cancer at any age, and male breast cancer at any age). RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight women (mean age, 46 years +/- 12 [standard deviation]) were enrolled. Breast cancer was found in 11 of 278 women at first round and seven of 99 at second round (14 invasive, four intraductal; eight were <or=10 mm in diameter). Detection rate per year was 4.8% (18 of 377) overall; 4.3% (11 of 258) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers versus 5.9% (seven of 119) in women enrolled because of strong family history; and 5.3% (nine of 169) in women with previous personal breast and/or ovarian cancer versus 4.3% (nine of 208) in those without. In six (33%) of 18 patients, cancer was detected only with MR imaging. Sensitivity was as follows: CBE, 50% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29%, 71%); mammography, 59% (95% CI: 36%, 78%); US, 65% (95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 94% (95% CI: 82%, 99%). Positive predictive value was as follows: CBE, 82% (95% CI: 52%, 95%); mammography, 77% (95% CI: 50%, 92%); US, 65% (95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 63% (95% CI: 43%, 79%). CONCLUSION: Addition of MR imaging to the screening regimen for high-risk women may enable detection of otherwise unsuspected breast cancers