PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in determining tumor necrosis and contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) in determining maximum tumor size measurement and tumor delineation compared with criterion-standard histologic measurements in the rabbit VX2 liver tumor model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: VX2 tumors were implanted in the livers of 13 rabbits. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed using a 1.5-T MRI scanner and an extremity coil. The imaging protocol included T2-weighted fast spin-echo images, 3-dimensional T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo with and without fat suppression after administration of Gd-EOB-DTPA, and diffusion-weighted echo planar images. Rabbits were killed, and the tumor was harvested and sliced at 4-mm intervals in the axial plane. The MRI parameters evaluated were tumor size, tumor delineation, and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Histologic sections were evaluated to quantify tumor necrosis. RESULTS: On contrast-enhanced MRI (obtained from 11 rabbits), the mean tumor sizes were 20, 19, and 20 mm in the arterial, portal venous, and delayed phases, respectively. Tumor delineation was most distinguishable in the delayed phase. On diffusion-weighted MRI (acquired in 13 rabbits), the mean tumor ADC value was 1.84 x 10 mm/s. The mean tumor size at pathology was 16 mm. The mean percent necrosis at the tumor's pathologic condition was 36%. The correlation between ADC value and percent necrosis showed an R value of 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced MRI using Gd-EOB-DTPA may provide additional information about tumor outline in the liver. Moreover, we showed a remarkable correlation between ADC values and tumor necrosis. Thus, diffusion-weighted imaging may be useful to assess tumor necrosis; nevertheless, the search for new modalities remains important.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in determining tumor necrosis and contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) in determining maximum tumor size measurement and tumor delineation compared with criterion-standard histologic measurements in the rabbit VX2 liver tumor model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: VX2 tumors were implanted in the livers of 13 rabbits. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed using a 1.5-T MRI scanner and an extremity coil. The imaging protocol included T2-weighted fast spin-echo images, 3-dimensional T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo with and without fat suppression after administration of Gd-EOB-DTPA, and diffusion-weighted echo planar images. Rabbits were killed, and the tumor was harvested and sliced at 4-mm intervals in the axial plane. The MRI parameters evaluated were tumor size, tumor delineation, and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Histologic sections were evaluated to quantify tumor necrosis. RESULTS: On contrast-enhanced MRI (obtained from 11 rabbits), the mean tumor sizes were 20, 19, and 20 mm in the arterial, portal venous, and delayed phases, respectively. Tumor delineation was most distinguishable in the delayed phase. On diffusion-weighted MRI (acquired in 13 rabbits), the mean tumor ADC value was 1.84 x 10 mm/s. The mean tumor size at pathology was 16 mm. The mean percent necrosis at the tumor's pathologic condition was 36%. The correlation between ADC value and percent necrosis showed an R value of 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced MRI using Gd-EOB-DTPA may provide additional information about tumor outline in the liver. Moreover, we showed a remarkable correlation between ADC values and tumor necrosis. Thus, diffusion-weighted imaging may be useful to assess tumor necrosis; nevertheless, the search for new modalities remains important.
Authors: B Hamm; T Staks; A Mühler; M Bollow; M Taupitz; T Frenzel; K J Wolf; H J Weinmann; L Lange Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jie Deng; Thomas K Rhee; Kent T Sato; Riad Salem; Kenneth Haines; Tatjana Paunesku; Mary F Mulcahy; Frank H Miller; Reed A Omary; Andrew C Larson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: P Reimer; E J Rummeny; K Shamsi; T Balzer; H E Daldrup; B Tombach; T Hesse; T Berns; P E Peters Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alexander Huppertz; 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 Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Renu M Stephen; Mark D Pagel; Kathy Brown; Amanda F Baker; Emmanuelle J Meuillet; Robert J Gillies Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2012-11
Authors: Antonia M Berz; Jessica G Santana; Simon Iseke; Moritz Gross; Vasily Pekurovsky; Fabian Laage Gaupp; Lynn J Savic; Tabea Borde; Luzie A Gottwald; Anne Marie Boustani; Bernhard Gebauer; MingDe Lin; Xuchen Zhang; Todd Schlachter; David C Madoff; Julius Chapiro Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 3.682
Authors: Huedayi Korkusuz; Lea Knau; Wolfgang Kromen; Frank Huebner; Renate Hammerstingl; Sebastian Lindemayr; Verena Bihrer; Albrecht Piiper; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Dae Chul Jung; Hak Jong Lee; Jin Won Seo; So Yeon Park; Sang Jin Lee; Joo Hyuk Lee; In Hoo Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Matthew Grech-Sollars; Dawn E Saunders; Kim P Phipps; Jonathan D Clayden; Chris A Clark Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 12.300