OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to report the results from a multicenter retrospective MRI study comparing gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium for diagnosis of hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients (28 women and two men; mean age, 37.1 years) with hepatic FNH who underwent both gadobenate dimeglumine- and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI at 1.5 T were assessed. MRI was performed during the arterial, portal venous, late venous, and hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced phases (10 and 20 minutes or 1-3 hours after contrast administration, respectively, for gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine). Qualitative (lesion conspicuity score) and quantitative (lesion signal intensity [SI] ratio and lesion contrast ratio) assessments were performed. RESULTS: In 30 patients, 51 FNHs were assessed (mean size 3.1 ± 1.5 cm). There was equivalent qualitative lesion conspicuity in the arterial phase between the two contrast agents and higher qualitative lesion conspicuity and SI ratio in the hepatobiliary phase with gadoxetate disodium (p < 0.002). Lesion contrast ratio was significantly higher in the arterial and late venous phases with gadobenate dimeglumine (p < 0.009), with no difference in the portal venous and hepatobiliary phases between the two contrast agents (p > 0.22). CONCLUSION: These results indicate an advantage for gadobenate dimeglumine for detection of FNH at the dynamic phase and for gadoxetate disodium at the hepatobiliary phase. However, the equivalent or better qualitative lesion conspicuity coupled with the ability to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of the liver within a standard 30-minute imaging window suggests that gadoxetate disodium may be a better choice for diagnosis of FNH.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to report the results from a multicenter retrospective MRI study comparing gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium for diagnosis of hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients (28 women and two men; mean age, 37.1 years) with hepatic FNH who underwent both gadobenate dimeglumine- and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI at 1.5 T were assessed. MRI was performed during the arterial, portal venous, late venous, and hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced phases (10 and 20 minutes or 1-3 hours after contrast administration, respectively, for gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine). Qualitative (lesion conspicuity score) and quantitative (lesion signal intensity [SI] ratio and lesion contrast ratio) assessments were performed. RESULTS: In 30 patients, 51 FNHs were assessed (mean size 3.1 ± 1.5 cm). There was equivalent qualitative lesion conspicuity in the arterial phase between the two contrast agents and higher qualitative lesion conspicuity and SI ratio in the hepatobiliary phase with gadoxetate disodium (p < 0.002). Lesion contrast ratio was significantly higher in the arterial and late venous phases with gadobenate dimeglumine (p < 0.009), with no difference in the portal venous and hepatobiliary phases between the two contrast agents (p > 0.22). CONCLUSION: These results indicate an advantage for gadobenate dimeglumine for detection of FNH at the dynamic phase and for gadoxetate disodium at the hepatobiliary phase. However, the equivalent or better qualitative lesion conspicuity coupled with the ability to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of the liver within a standard 30-minute imaging window suggests that gadoxetate disodium may be a better choice for diagnosis of FNH.