OBJECTIVE: To compare gadoxetic acid injection rates of 0.5 mL/s and 1 mL/s for hepatic arterial-phase magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 101 consecutive patients with suspected focal liver lesions were included and randomly divided into two groups. Each group underwent dynamic liver MR imaging using a 3.0-T scanner after an intravenous injection of gadoxetic acid at rates of either 0.5 mL/s (n = 50) or 1 mL/s (n = 51). Arterial phase images were analyzed after blinding the injection rates. The signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the liver, aorta, portal vein, hepatic vein, spleen, and pancreas were measured. The contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of the hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) were calculated. Finally, two experienced radiologists were independently asked to identify, if any, HCCs in the liver on the images and score the image quality in terms of the presence of artifacts and the proper enhancement of the liver, aorta, portal vein, hepatic vein, hepatic artery, spleen, pancreas, and kidney. RESULTS: The SNRs were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.233-0.965). The CNRs of the HCCs were not significantly different (p = 0.597). The sensitivity for HCC detection and the image quality scores were not significantly different between the two injection rates (p = 0.082-1.000). CONCLUSION:Image quality and sensitivity for hepatic HCCs of arterial-phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR were not significantly improved by reducing the contrast injection rate to 0.5 mL/s compared with 1 mL/s.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare gadoxetic acid injection rates of 0.5 mL/s and 1 mL/s for hepatic arterial-phase magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 101 consecutive patients with suspected focal liver lesions were included and randomly divided into two groups. Each group underwent dynamic liver MR imaging using a 3.0-T scanner after an intravenous injection of gadoxetic acid at rates of either 0.5 mL/s (n = 50) or 1 mL/s (n = 51). Arterial phase images were analyzed after blinding the injection rates. The signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the liver, aorta, portal vein, hepatic vein, spleen, and pancreas were measured. The contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of the hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) were calculated. Finally, two experienced radiologists were independently asked to identify, if any, HCCs in the liver on the images and score the image quality in terms of the presence of artifacts and the proper enhancement of the liver, aorta, portal vein, hepatic vein, hepatic artery, spleen, pancreas, and kidney. RESULTS: The SNRs were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.233-0.965). The CNRs of the HCCs were not significantly different (p = 0.597). The sensitivity for HCC detection and the image quality scores were not significantly different between the two injection rates (p = 0.082-1.000). CONCLUSION: Image quality and sensitivity for hepatic HCCs of arterial-phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR were not significantly improved by reducing the contrast injection rate to 0.5 mL/s compared with 1 mL/s.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gadoxetic acid; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Injection rate; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: T J Vogl; S Kümmel; R Hammerstingl; M Schellenbeck; G Schumacher; T Balzer; W Schwarz; P K Müller; W O Bechstein; M G Mack; O Söllner; R Felix Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: F Trevisani; P E D'Intino; A M Morselli-Labate; G Mazzella; E Accogli; P Caraceni; M Domenicali; S De Notariis; E Roda; M Bernardi Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 25.083
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: P Brugières; A Gaston; H R Degryse; P M Parizel; A M de Schepper; I Berry; C Manelfe; F Le Bras; C Marsault; W Wichmann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 1994 Impact factor: 2.804
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: Sarah Poetter-Lang; Gregor O Dovjak; Alina Messner; Raphael Ambros; Stephan H Polanec; Pascal A T Baltzer; Antonia Kristic; Alexander Herold; Jacqueline C Hodge; Michael Weber; Nina Bastati; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Ji Hye Min; Young Kon Kim; Tae Wook Kang; Woo Kyoung Jeong; Won Jae Lee; Soohyun Ahn; Na Young Hwang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 5.315
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