OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a procedure for quantifying the hepatocyte-specific uptake of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were prospectively recruited and 21 patients with suspected hepatobiliary disease were retrospectively evaluated. All subjects were examined with DCE-MRI using 0.025 mmol/kg of Gd-EOB-DTPA. The healthy volunteers underwent an additional examination using 0.05 mmol/kg of Gd-BOPTA. The signal intensities (SI) of liver and spleen parenchyma were obtained from unenhanced and enhanced acquisitions. Using pharmacokinetic models of the liver and spleen, and an SI rescaling procedure, a hepatic uptake rate, K (Hep), estimate was derived. The K (Hep) values for Gd-EOB-DTPA were then studied in relation to those for Gd-BOPTA and to a clinical classification of the patient's hepatobiliary dysfunction. RESULTS: K (Hep) estimated using Gd-EOB-DTPA showed a significant Pearson correlation with K (Hep) estimated using Gd-BOPTA (r = 0.64; P < 0.05) in healthy subjects. Patients with impaired hepatobiliary function had significantly lower K (Hep) than patients with normal hepatobiliary function (K (Hep) = 0.09 ± 0.05 min(-1) versus K (Hep) = 0.24 ± 0.10 min(-1); P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A new procedure for quantifying the hepatocyte-specific uptake of T (1)-enhancing contrast agent was demonstrated and used to show that impaired hepatobiliary function severely influences the hepatic uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA. KEY POINTS: • The liver uptake of contrast agents may be measured with standard clinical MRI. • Calculation of liver contrast agent uptake is improved by considering splenic uptake. • Liver function affects the uptake of the liver-specific contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. • Hepatic uptake of two contrast agents (Gd-EOB-DTPA, Gd-BOPTA) is correlated in healthy individuals. • This method can be useful for determining liver function, e.g. before hepatic surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a procedure for quantifying the hepatocyte-specific uptake of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were prospectively recruited and 21 patients with suspected hepatobiliary disease were retrospectively evaluated. All subjects were examined with DCE-MRI using 0.025 mmol/kg of Gd-EOB-DTPA. The healthy volunteers underwent an additional examination using 0.05 mmol/kg of Gd-BOPTA. The signal intensities (SI) of liver and spleen parenchyma were obtained from unenhanced and enhanced acquisitions. Using pharmacokinetic models of the liver and spleen, and an SI rescaling procedure, a hepatic uptake rate, K (Hep), estimate was derived. The K (Hep) values for Gd-EOB-DTPA were then studied in relation to those for Gd-BOPTA and to a clinical classification of the patient's hepatobiliary dysfunction. RESULTS: K (Hep) estimated using Gd-EOB-DTPA showed a significant Pearson correlation with K (Hep) estimated using Gd-BOPTA (r = 0.64; P < 0.05) in healthy subjects. Patients with impaired hepatobiliary function had significantly lower K (Hep) than patients with normal hepatobiliary function (K (Hep) = 0.09 ± 0.05 min(-1) versus K (Hep) = 0.24 ± 0.10 min(-1); P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A new procedure for quantifying the hepatocyte-specific uptake of T (1)-enhancing contrast agent was demonstrated and used to show that impaired hepatobiliary function severely influences the hepatic uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA. KEY POINTS: • The liver uptake of contrast agents may be measured with standard clinical MRI. • Calculation of liver contrast agent uptake is improved by considering splenic uptake. • Liver function affects the uptake of the liver-specific contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. • Hepatic uptake of two contrast agents (Gd-EOB-DTPA, Gd-BOPTA) is correlated in healthy individuals. • This method can be useful for determining liver function, e.g. before hepatic surgery.
Authors: P S Kamath; R H Wiesner; M Malinchoc; W Kremers; T M Therneau; C L Kosberg; G D'Amico; E R Dickson; W R Kim Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: N Verloh; M Haimerl; F Zeman; M Schlabeck; A Barreiros; M Loss; A G Schreyer; C Stroszczynski; C Fellner; P Wiggermann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel Truhn; Christiane K Kuhl; Alexander Ciritsis; Alexandra Barabasch; Nils A Kraemer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Krishna Juluru; Andrew H Talal; Rhonda K Yantiss; Pascal Spincemaille; Elizabeth K Weidman; Ashley E Giambrone; Sadaf Jalili; Steven P Sourbron; Jonathan P Dyke Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Hanke J Schalkx; Marijn van Stralen; Kenneth Coenegrachts; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Charlotte S van Kessel; Richard van Hillegersberg; Karel J van Erpecum; Helena M Verkooijen; Josien P W Pluim; Wouter B Veldhuis; Maarten S van Leeuwen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Guido M Kukuk; Stephanie G Schaefer; Rolf Fimmers; Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Samer Ezziddin; Ulrich Spengler; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 5.315