Literature DB >> 14695400

Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings.

Alexander Huppertz1, Thomas Balzer, Anthony Blakeborough, Josy Breuer, Andrea Giovagnoni, Gertraud Heinz-Peer, Michael Laniado, Riccardo M Manfredi, Didier G Mathieu, Dieter Mueller, Peter Reimer, Philip J Robinson, Michael Strotzer, Matthias Taupitz, Thomas J Vogl.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the detection of focal liver lesions, with results of histopathologic examination and/or intraoperative ultrasonography used as a standard of reference.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-nine patients who were known to have or suspected of having focal liver lesions and were scheduled for liver surgery were included in this study. Results in 131 patients could be included in the efficacy analysis. MR imaging was performed before and immediately and 20 minutes after bolus injection of 0.025 mmol/kg of the liver-specific hepatobiliary contrast agent gadoxetic acid. T1-weighted gradient-echo (with and without fat saturation and including dynamic data sets) and T2-weighted fast spin-echo/turbo spin-echo sequences were performed. All images were evaluated on site and by three independent and blinded off-site reviewers. Lesion matching based on the standard-of-reference results was performed. Differences in lesion detection with precontrast and with postcontrast MR images were assessed with the two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test.
RESULTS: Gadoxetic acid was well tolerated. In the on-site review, the number of patients in whom all lesions were correctly matched increased from 89 of 129 patients at precontrast MR imaging to 103 of 129 patients at postcontrast MR imaging. In the off-site evaluation, the number of patients in whom all lesions were correctly matched and the corresponding sensitivity values increased from 72 (55.8%), 68 (52.7%), and 66 (51.2%) with the precontrast images to 88 (68.2%), 69 (53.5%), and 76 (58.9%) with the postcontrast images for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Two of the three blinded readers showed a statistically significant difference in lesion detection between precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging (P <.001 and P =.008). A large number of additionally correctly detected and localized lesions were smaller than 1 cm.
CONCLUSION: MR imaging with gadoxetic acid is safe and improves lesion detection and localization. Copyright RSNA, 2004

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14695400     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2301020269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  97 in total

1.  Small (≤ 2 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI and multiphasic 64-multirow detector CT.

Authors:  J Hwang; S H Kim; M W Lee; J Y Lee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Chronological evaluation of liver enhancement in patients with chronic liver disease at Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3-T MR imaging: does liver function correlate with enhancement?

Authors:  Shinichi Nakamura; Kazuo Awai; Daisuke Utsunomiya; Tomohiro Namimoto; Takeshi Nakaura; Kosuke Morita; Yasuyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 3.  [Current status of MRI diagnostics with liver-specific contrast agents. Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA].

Authors:  C Stroszczynski; G Gaffke; M Gnauck; F Streitparth; G Wieners; E Lopez-Häninnen
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  The effect of gadoxetic acid enhancement on lesion detection and characterisation using T₂ weighted imaging and diffusion weighted imaging of the liver.

Authors:  S A Choi; S S Lee; I-H Jung; H A Kim; J H Byun; M-G Lee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Assessment of arterial hypervascularity of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of contrast-enhanced US and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Katsutoshi Sugimoto; Fuminori Moriyasu; Junji Shiraishi; Kazuhiro Saito; Junichi Taira; Toru Saguchi; Yasuharu Imai
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Effect of hepatobiliary uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA on the hepatic venous phase of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging on a 3.0-T apparatus: comparison between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA.

Authors:  Yasunari Fujinaga; Ayumi Ohya; Tsuyoshi Matsushita; Masahiro Kurozumi; Kazuhiko Ueda; Yoshihiro Kitou; Hitoshi Ueda; Masumi Kadoya
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 7.  Safety of MR liver specific contrast media.

Authors:  Marie-France Bellin; Judith A W Webb; Aart J Van Der Molen; Henrik S Thomsen; Sameh K Morcos
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-12-31       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  [Radiological diagnosis of hepatic tumors. Part II: Identification and differential diagnosis].

Authors:  G Layer; S Delorme
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  Health-economic evaluation of three imaging strategies in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI vs. extracellular contrast media-enhanced MRI and 3-phase MDCT in Germany, Italy and Sweden.

Authors:  C J Zech; L Grazioli; E Jonas; M Ekman; R Niebecker; S Gschwend; J Breuer; L Jönsson; S Kienbaum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Usefulness of Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with pathological diagnosis and superparamagnetic iron oxide magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Keiko Korenaga; Masaaki Korenaga; Matakazu Furukawa; Takahiro Yamasaki; Isao Sakaida
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 7.527

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.