» Articles » PMID: 37901445

Liver Metastases: The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

The liver is one of the organs most commonly involved in metastatic disease, especially due to its unique vascularization. It's well known that liver metastases represent the most common hepatic malignant tumors. From a practical point of view, it's of utmost importance to evaluate the presence of liver metastases when staging oncologic patients, to select the best treatment possible, and finally to predict the overall prognosis. In the past few years, imaging techniques have gained a central role in identifying liver metastases, thanks to ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All these techniques, especially CT and MRI, can be considered the non-invasive reference standard techniques for the assessment of liver involvement by metastases. On the other hand, the liver can be affected by different focal lesions, sometimes benign, and sometimes malignant. On these bases, radiologists should face the differential diagnosis between benign and secondary lesions to correctly allocate patients to the best management. Considering the above-mentioned principles, it's extremely important to underline and refresh the broad spectrum of liver metastases features that can occur in everyday clinical practice. This review aims to summarize the most common imaging features of liver metastases, with a special focus on typical and atypical appearance, by using MRI.

Citing Articles

Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents (GBCAs) for MRI: A Benefit-Risk Balance Analysis from a Chemical, Biomedical, and Environmental Point of View.

Scarciglia A, Papi C, Romiti C, Leone A, Di Gregorio E, Ferrauto G Glob Chall. 2025; 9(3):2400269.

PMID: 40071223 PMC: 11891575. DOI: 10.1002/gch2.202400269.


Differentiating Liver Metastases from Primary Liver Cancer: A Retrospective Study of Imaging and Pathological Features in Patients with Histopathological Confirmation.

Ghenciu L, Grigoras M, Rosu L, Bolintineanu S, Sima L, Cretu O Biomedicines. 2025; 13(1.

PMID: 39857748 PMC: 11759174. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines13010164.


MRI analysis of relative tumor enhancement in liver metastases and correlation with immunohistochemical features.

Barajas Ordonez F, Gottschling S, Eger K, Borggrefe J, Jechorek D, Surov A Insights Imaging. 2024; 15(1):294.

PMID: 39636546 PMC: 11621246. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-024-01866-7.


Imaging and Metabolic Diagnostic Methods in the Stage Assessment of Rectal Cancer.

Maksim R, Buczynska A, Sidorkiewicz I, Kretowski A, Sierko E Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(14).

PMID: 39061192 PMC: 11275086. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16142553.


Ablation of Small Liver Metastases Presenting as Foci of Diffusion Restriction on MRI-Results from the Prospective Minimally Invasive Thermal Ablation (MITA) Study.

Wijnen N, Bruijnen R, Thelissen A, W A M de Jong H, van Leeuwaarde R, Hagendoorn J Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(13).

PMID: 39001471 PMC: 11240348. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16132409.


References
1.
Ikram N, Yee J, Weinstein S, Yeh B, Corvera C, Monto A . Multiple arterial phase MRI of arterial hypervascular hepatic lesions: improved arterial phase capture and lesion enhancement. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016; 42(3):870-876. PMC: 5357156. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0948-8. View

2.
Fiorentini G, Sarti D, Aliberti C, Carandina R, Mambrini A, Guadagni S . Multidisciplinary approach of colorectal cancer liver metastases. World J Clin Oncol. 2017; 8(3):190-202. PMC: 5465009. DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v8.i3.190. View

3.
Engel S, DOCKERTY M . Calcification and ossification in rectal malignant processes. JAMA. 1962; 179:347-50. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1962.03050050037006. View

4.
Okada M, Wakayama T, Yada N, Hyodo T, Numata K, Kagawa Y . Optimal flip angle of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis. Abdom Imaging. 2014; 39(4):694-701. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-014-0096-y. View

5.
Rao S, Lambregts D, Schnerr R, Beckers R, Maas M, Albarello F . CT texture analysis in colorectal liver metastases: A better way than size and volume measurements to assess response to chemotherapy?. United European Gastroenterol J. 2016; 4(2):257-63. PMC: 4804371. DOI: 10.1177/2050640615601603. View