MR Lymphangiography at 3.0 T: Correlation with Lymphoscintigraphy

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare findings of magnetic resonance (MR) lymphangiography with those of lymphoscintigraphy, evaluate the pattern and delay of lymphatic drainage, compare typical findings, and investigate discrepancies between the techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee. Thirty consecutive patients with uni- or bilateral lymphedema and lymph vessel transplants of the lower extremities were examined with 3.0-T fat-saturated three-dimensional gradient-echo MR after gadopentetate dimeglumine injection. Results of all examinations were correlated with corresponding results of lymphoscintigraphy examinations. Results of both techniques were separately reviewed in consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear physician, who rated delay and pattern of drainage, number of enhancing levels, and quality of conspicuity of the depiction of lymph nodes and lymph vessels. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by using combined results of both techniques and clinical presentation findings as reference standard. Correlation was calculated with weighted k coefficients. RESULTS: Weak lymphatic drainage at lymphoscintigraphy correlated with lymphangiectasia at MR lymphangiography (13 of 33 affected extremities). Lymph vessels were clearly visualized with MR lymphangiography (five of 24 affected extremities), while they were not detectable with lymphoscintigraphy. Depiction of inguinal lymph nodes was clearer with lymphoscintigraphy (five of 60 extremities). Correlation of both techniques was excellent for delay (κ=0.93) and pattern (κ=0.84) of drainage, good for depiction of lymph nodes (κ=0.67) and number of enhancing levels (κ=0.77), and moderate for depiction of lymph vessels (κ=0.50). Sensitivity and specificity for delay and pattern of drainage were concordant, whereas MR lymphangiography showed a higher sensitivity for lymph vessel abnormalities (100% vs 79%) and lower specificity for lymph node abnormalities (78% vs 100%). CONCLUSION: Imaging findings of MR lymphangiography and lymphoscintigraphy show a clear concordance. With lymphoscintigraphy, better visualization of inguinal lymph nodes was achieved, whereas with MR lymphangiography, better depiction of lymph vessels and morphologic features of lymph vessel abnormalities were achieved.