Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of XXXX in the presence of negative CT studies.

@entity1 @entity3123 @entity1911 @entity5 @entity694 @entity1358 @entity3 @entity980 @entity157 @entity99
While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not a screening examination in the search for @entity3 , it has already demonstrated its value when performed as a carefully directed study to detect focal @entity99 . In the past 18 months we have encountered nine @entity1 (six @entity1 , three @entity1 --ages 14-66) with a variety of @entity5 ( @entity1358 , two; @entity694 , two; @entity157 , two; @entity3123 , one; @entity1911 , one; @entity980 , one) whose MR scans revealed @entity99 after normal or nondiagnostic computed tomographic (CT) scans. The lesions were most clearly demonstrated using spin echo (SE) technique with recovery times (TR) of 2.0 seconds and delay times (TE) of 56 msec; metastases usually imaged with greater signal intensity than surrounding liver parenchyma. Lesions were solitary in three @entity1 , multiple in six, and were found in all hepatic lobes without any specific location predominating. Pathologic confirmations of MR diagnoses were available in six of nine @entity1 . In two @entity1 , CT scans were of poor technical quality because streak artifacts from surgical clips obscured portions of the liver. In one @entity1 iodinated contrast medium could not be given. In the remaining six @entity1 CT scan quality was acceptable. This report is not a comparison study of the two modalities. We simply present nine @entity1 in whom metastases were not detected by CT for various reasons but were found by MRI using SE technique.
