Literature DB >> 23159401

Imaging features of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI.

Anne R J Péporté1, Wieland H Sommer, Konstantin Nikolaou, Maximilian F Reiser, Christoph J Zech.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the imaging features of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and to determine whether it results in improved tumour conspicuity of cholangiocarcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients with histologically proven intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma underwent MRI of the liver using a 1.5T MR-scanner with Gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA; Eovist/Primovist, Bayer Healthcare, Berlin, Germany). The standard imaging protocol included a T2w multi-shot TSE sequence with fat saturation (fs), a T2w single shot sequence without fs and a T1w 3D GRE sequences with fs (unenhanced and arterial, portovenous, late venous and hepatobiliary phase). Two board certified radiologists experienced in liver MRI (5 and 10 years experience) evaluated retrospectively all MRI scans qualitatively and quantitatively. Signal was measured with region-of-interests (ROI) and signal-to-noise (SNR) as well as contrast-to-noise (CNR) was calculated. Statistical significance was tested with an ANOVA and a pairwise Wilcoxon rank test.
RESULTS: All intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas presented as hypointense lesions in the late venous and hepatobiliary phase. Images in the hepatobiliary phase showed the highest lesion conspicuity, i.e. n=9 blurred (16.6%), n=31 moderate (57.4%) and n=14 sharp (26%). This was significantly higher than the lesion conspicuity of all other sequences or phases. Furthermore, the CNR was the highest in this sequence with 76.8±51.3, with significantly higher values than the CNR of the unenhanced T1w sequence (CNR: 35.6±21.0; p<0.0001) and the arterial phase images (CNR: 53.6±36.8; p<0.001). The hepatobiliary phase images showed a SNR of 97.3±59.7 (p<0.001) and thus was significantly different from the unenhanced T1w sequence (SNR: 60.4±35.3; p<0.001), whereas the increase in SNR from the late venous to hepatobiliary phase was neglectable, indicating that no liver-specific contrast uptake is present in cholangiocarcinoma.
CONCLUSION: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma presents as a hypointense lesion in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI in late venous phase images. The lesion conspicuity as well as CNR was highest in the hepatobiliary phase. Consequently, hepatobiliary phase images in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI images might be helpful for therapy planning due to the exact depiction of the tumour borders.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23159401     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.10.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  25 in total

1.  Differentiation of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging.

Authors:  Rihyeon Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Cheong-Il Shin; Eun Sun Lee; Jeong Hee Yoon; Ijin Joo; Seong Ho Kim; Inpyeong Hwang; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic value of preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Jieun Koh; Yong Eun Chung; Ji Hae Nahm; Ha Yan Kim; Kyung-Sik Kim; Young Nyun Park; Myeong-Jin Kim; Jin-Young Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from its various mimickers in liver magnetic resonance imaging: What are the tips when using hepatocyte-specific agents?

Authors:  Yang Shin Park; Chang Hee Lee; Jeong Woo Kim; Sora Shin; Cheol Min Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Monitoring outcomes in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients following hepatic resection.

Authors:  Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Pallavi Pandey; Ihab Kamel; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Hepat Oncol       Date:  2017-01-20

Review 5.  Liver Masses: What Physicians Need to Know About Ordering and Interpreting Liver Imaging.

Authors:  Arman Sheybani; Ron C Gaba; R Peter Lokken; Senta M Berggruen; Winnie A Mar
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2017-10-18

Review 6.  Recent Advances in the Imaging Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Value of Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Ijin Joo; Jeong Min Lee
Journal:  Liver Cancer       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 11.740

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance evaluations of biliary malignancy and condition at high-risk for biliary malignancy: Current status.

Authors:  Reiji Sugita
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2013-12-27

Review 8.  Evidence Supporting LI-RADS Major Features for CT- and MR Imaging-based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  An Tang; Mustafa R Bashir; Michael T Corwin; Irene Cruite; Christoph F Dietrich; Richard K G Do; Eric C Ehman; Kathryn J Fowler; Hero K Hussain; Reena C Jha; Adib R Karam; Adrija Mamidipalli; Robert M Marks; Donald G Mitchell; Tara A Morgan; Michael A Ohliger; Amol Shah; Kim-Nhien Vu; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Focal liver lesions: Practical magnetic resonance imaging approach.

Authors:  António P Matos; Fernanda Velloni; Miguel Ramalho; Mamdoh AlObaidy; Aruna Rajapaksha; Richard C Semelka
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-08-08

10.  Assessment of primary liver carcinomas other than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with LI-RADS v2018: comparison of the LI-RADS target population to patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors.

Authors:  Tyler J Fraum; Roberto Cannella; Daniel R Ludwig; Richard Tsai; Muhammad Naeem; Maverick LeBlanc; Amber Salter; Allan Tsung; Anup S Shetty; Amir A Borhani; Alessandro Furlan; Kathryn J Fowler
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.