Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:19847482rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0027651lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0087111lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0031809lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2239176lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1704632lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0871261lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2911692lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1706817lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0024485lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0796679lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:issue3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:dateCreated2010-5-12lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:abstractTextThe purpose of this study was to compare the ability of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate treatment results after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), with a special focus on the influence of Lipiodol on calculation of tumor necrosis according to EASL criteria. A total of 115 nodules in 20 patients (17 males, 3 females; 69.5 +/- 9.35 years) with biopsy-proven hepatocellular carcinoma were treated with TACE. Embolization was performed using a doxorubicin-Lipiodol emulsion (group I) or DC Beads loaded with doxorubicin (group II). Follow-up included triphasic contrast-enhanced 64-row MDCT (collimation, 0.625 mm; slice, 3 mm; contrast bolus, 120 ml iomeprol; delay by bolus trigger) and contrast-enhanced MRI (T1 native, T2 native; five dynamic contrast-enhanced phases; 0.1 mmol/kg body weight gadolinium-DTPA; slice thickness, 4 mm). Residual tumor and the extent of tumor necrosis were evaluated according to EASL. Contrast enhancement within tumor lesions was suspected to represent vital tumor. In the Lipiodol-based TACE protocol, MDCT underestimated residual viable tumor compared to MRI, due to Lipiodol artifacts (23.2% vs 47.7% after first, 11.9% vs 31.2% after second, and 11.4% vs 23.7% after third TACE; p = 0.0014, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast to MDCT, MRI was completely free of any artifacts caused by Lipiodol. In the DC Bead-based Lipiodol-free TACE protocol, MRI and CT showed similar residual tumor and rating of treatment results (46.4% vs 41.2%, 31.9 vs 26.8%, and 26.0% vs 25.6%; n.s.). In conclusion, MRI is superior to MDCT for detection of viable tumor residuals after Lipiodol-based TACE. Since viable tumor tissue is superimposed by Lipiodol artifacts in MDCT, MRI is mandatory for reliable decision-making during follow-up after Lipiodol-based TACE protocols.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:monthJunlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:issn1432-086Xlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BiesterfeldSt...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:authorpubmed-author:OttoGerdGlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PittonMichael...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:authorpubmed-author:OberholzerKat...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DueberChristo...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KloecknerRoma...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:issnTypeElectroniclld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:volume33lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:pagination532-40lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19847482...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:year2010lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:articleTitleMDCT versus MRI assessment of tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany. Roman.Kloeckner@googlemail.comlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19847482pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed