Diagnostic ability of diffusion-weighted imaging using echo planar imaging with compressed SENSE (EPICS) for differentiating hepatic hemangioma and liver metastasis.

PURPOSE:To assess the diagnostic abilities of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with parallel imaging (PI-DWI) and that with Compressed SENSE (EPICS-DWI) for differentiating hepatic hemangiomas (HHs) and liver metastases (LMs). METHOD:This prospective study included 30 participants with HH and/or LM who underwent PI-DWI and EPICS-DWI. Two radiologists assessed the DWI images and assigned confidence scores for hepatic lesions conspicuity using 4-point scale. One of the radiologists additionally calculated the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and measured ADC value of the hepatic lesions. The conspicuity, CNR, and ADC values were compared between the two sequences. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic abilities of the two sequences for differentiating HHs and LMs. RESULTS:The conspicuity of LMs was better in EPICS-DWI than in PI-DWI (P < .05 in both radiologists). The CNR of LMs was higher in EPICS-DWI than in PI-DWI (P = .008). No difference was found in the CNR of HHs (P = .52), ADC values for HHs (P = .79), and LMs (P = .29) between the two sequences. To differentiate between HHs and LMs, the cutoff ADC values were 1.38 × 10-3 mm2/s in PI-DWI and 1.37 × 10-3 mm2/s in EPICS-DWI. The area under the ROC curve (P = .86), sensitivity (P > .99), and specificity (P > .99) did not vary. CONCLUSIONS:The LMs were more visible in EPICS-DWI than in PI-DWI. However, the cutoff ADC values and diagnostic abilities for differentiating HHs and LMs were almost comparable between the two sequences.