Peter Bannas1,2, Candice A Bookwalter3, Tim Ziemlewicz3, Utaroh Motosugi3,4, Alejandro Munoz Del Rio3, Theodora A Potretzke3, Scott K Nagle3,5,6, Scott B Reeder3,5,7,8,9. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. p.bannas@uke.de. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. p.bannas@uke.de. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. 5. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare gadoxetic acid alone and combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset trisodium-enhanced liver MRI for detection of metastases and differentiation of metastases from haemangiomas. METHODS: Ninety-one patients underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI before and after additional injection of gadofosveset. First, two readers retrospectively identified metastases on gadoxetic acid alone enhanced delayed hepatobiliary phase T1-weighted images together with all other MR images (dynamic images, T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted images). Second, readers assessed additional T1-weighted images obtained after administration of gadofosveset trisodium. For both interpretations, readers rated lesion conspicuity and confidence in differentiating metastases from haemangiomas. Results were compared using alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (AFROC) and conventional ROC methods. Histology and follow-up served as reference standard. RESULTS: There were 145 metastases and 16 haemangiomas. Both readers detected more metastases using combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset (reader 1 = 130; reader 2 = 124) compared to gadoxetic acid alone (reader 1 = 104; reader 2 = 103). Sensitivity of combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset (reader 1 = 90 %; reader 2 = 86 %) was higher than that of gadoxetic acid alone (reader 1 = 72 %; reader 2 = 71 %, both P < 0.01). AFROC-AUC was higher for the combined technique (0.92 vs. 0.86, P < 0.001). Sensitivity for correct differentiation of metastases from haemangiomas was higher for the combined technique (reader 1 = 98 %; reader 2 = 99 % vs. reader 1 = 86 %; reader 2 = 91 %, both P < 0.01). ROC-AUC was significantly higher for the combined technique (reader 1 = 1.00; reader 2 = 1.00 vs. reader 1 = 0.87; reader 2 = 0.92, both P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset-enhanced MRI improves detection and characterization of liver metastases compared to gadoxetic acid alone. KEY POINTS: • Combined gadoxetic acid and gadofosveset-enhanced liver MRI significantly improves detection of metastases. • The combined enhancement technique improves the accuracy to differentiate metastases from haemangiomas. • Prospective studies need to determine the clinical impact of the combined technique.
PURPOSE: To compare gadoxetic acid alone and combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset trisodium-enhanced liver MRI for detection of metastases and differentiation of metastases from haemangiomas. METHODS: Ninety-one patients underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI before and after additional injection of gadofosveset. First, two readers retrospectively identified metastases on gadoxetic acid alone enhanced delayed hepatobiliary phase T1-weighted images together with all other MR images (dynamic images, T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted images). Second, readers assessed additional T1-weighted images obtained after administration of gadofosveset trisodium. For both interpretations, readers rated lesion conspicuity and confidence in differentiating metastases from haemangiomas. Results were compared using alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (AFROC) and conventional ROC methods. Histology and follow-up served as reference standard. RESULTS: There were 145 metastases and 16 haemangiomas. Both readers detected more metastases using combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset (reader 1 = 130; reader 2 = 124) compared to gadoxetic acid alone (reader 1 = 104; reader 2 = 103). Sensitivity of combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset (reader 1 = 90 %; reader 2 = 86 %) was higher than that of gadoxetic acid alone (reader 1 = 72 %; reader 2 = 71 %, both P < 0.01). AFROC-AUC was higher for the combined technique (0.92 vs. 0.86, P < 0.001). Sensitivity for correct differentiation of metastases from haemangiomas was higher for the combined technique (reader 1 = 98 %; reader 2 = 99 % vs. reader 1 = 86 %; reader 2 = 91 %, both P < 0.01). ROC-AUC was significantly higher for the combined technique (reader 1 = 1.00; reader 2 = 1.00 vs. reader 1 = 0.87; reader 2 = 0.92, both P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined gadoxetic acid/gadofosveset-enhanced MRI improves detection and characterization of liver metastases compared to gadoxetic acid alone. KEY POINTS: • Combined gadoxetic acid and gadofosveset-enhanced liver MRI significantly improves detection of metastases. • The combined enhancement technique improves the accuracy to differentiate metastases from haemangiomas. • Prospective studies need to determine the clinical impact of the combined technique.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gadofosveset trisodium; Gadoxetic acid; Liver; Magnetic resonance imaging; Metastases
Authors: Hye Jin Kim; Seung Soo Lee; Jae Ho Byun; Jin Cheon Kim; Chang Sik Yu; Seong Ho Park; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C J Zech; P Korpraphong; A Huppertz; T Denecke; M J Kim; W Tanomkiat; E Jonas; A Ba-Ssalamah Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Simon Veldhoen; Cyrus Behzadi; Alexander Lenz; Frank Oliver Henes; Meike Rybczynski; Yskert von Kodolitsch; Thorsten Alexander Bley; Gerhard Adam; Peter Bannas Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Thomas S C Ng; Huiyu Hu; Stefan Kronister; Chanseo Lee; Ran Li; Luca Gerosa; Sylwia A Stopka; Danielle M Burgenske; Ishaan Khurana; Michael S Regan; Sreeram Vallabhaneni; Niharika Putta; Ella Scott; Dylan Matvey; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Rainer H Kohler; Jann N Sarkaria; Sareh Parangi; Peter K Sorger; Nathalie Y R Agar; Heather A Jacene; Ryan J Sullivan; Elizabeth Buchbinder; Hannes Mikula; Ralph Weissleder; Miles A Miller Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 14.957