Literature DB >> 23065959

Enhancement of the liver and pancreas in the hepatic arterial dominant phase: comparison of hepatocyte-specific MRI contrast agents, gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine, on 3 and 1.5 Tesla MRI in the same patient.

Hee Jin Kim1, Bong Soo Kim, Mi Jeong Kim, Seong Hyun Kim, Rafael O P de Campos, Mateus Hernandes, Richard C Semelka.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative enhancement of liver, pancreas, focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), pancreas-to-liver index, and FNH-to-liver index in the hepatic arterial dominant phase (HADP) after injection of hepatocyte-specific MRI contrast agents, gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine, on 3 and 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI in the same patient.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MRI database was retrospectively searched to identify consecutive patients who underwent abdominal MRI at 3T and 1.5T systems, using both 0.025 mmol/kg gadoxetic acid-enhanced and 0.05 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI at the same magnetic strength field system. 22 patients were identified, 10 were scanned at 3T system and 12 at 1.5T system. The enhancement of liver, pancreas, and FNH was evaluated quantitatively on MR images.
RESULTS: The relative enhancement of liver in HADP in the gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced group in all subjects was significantly higher than that in gadoxetic acid-enhanced group (P = 0.023). The gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced group in HADP had better relative enhancement of pancreas and FNH, pancreas-to-liver index, and FNH-to-liver index than gadoxetic acid-enhanced group, but the difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: The 0.05 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced abdominal MRI studies at 3T and 1.5T MR systems are superior in relative enhancement of the liver in HADP to 0.025 mmol/kg gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. This type of assessment may provide comparative effectiveness data.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23065959     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23874

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  6 in total

1.  3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: A new standard in liver imaging?

Authors:  Rossano Girometti
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-07-28

2.  Increase in left liver lobe function after preoperative right portal vein embolisation assessed with gadolinium-EOB-DTPA MRI.

Authors:  Dominik Geisel; Lutz Lüdemann; Thomas Keuchel; Maciej Malinowski; Daniel Seehofer; Martin Stockmann; Bernd Hamm; Bernhard Gebauer; Timm Denecke
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Imaging-based evaluation of liver function: comparison of ⁹⁹mTc-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Dominik Geisel; Lutz Lüdemann; Vera Fröling; Maciej Malinowski; Martin Stockmann; Annekathrin Baron; Bernhard Gebauer; Daniel Seehofer; Vikas Prasad; Timm Denecke
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents.

Authors:  E Neri; M A Bali; A Ba-Ssalamah; P Boraschi; G Brancatelli; F Caseiro Alves; L Grazioli; T Helmberger; J M Lee; R Manfredi; L Martì-Bonmatì; C Matos; E M Merkle; B Op De Beeck; W Schima; S Skehan; V Vilgrain; C Zech; C Bartolozzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  MR Imaging of Hepatocellular Adenomas and Differential Diagnosis Dilemma.

Authors:  Luigi Grazioli; Lucio Olivetti; Giancarlo Mazza; Maria Pia Bondioni
Journal:  Int J Hepatol       Date:  2013-03-27

Review 6.  Troubleshooting Arterial-Phase MR Images of Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Liver.

Authors:  Jimi Huh; So Yeon Kim; Benjamin M Yeh; Seung Soo Lee; Kyoung Won Kim; En-Haw Wu; Z Jane Wang; Li-qin Zhao; Wei Chou Chang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 3.500

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.