| Literature DB >> 29930464 |
Davide Ippolito1, Riccardo Inchingolo2, Luigi Grazioli3, Silvia Girolama Drago1, Michele Nardella2, Marco Gatti4, Riccardo Faletti4.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the liver is an important tool for the detection and characterization of focal liver lesions and for assessment of diffuse liver disease, having several intrinsic characteristics, represented by high soft tissue contrast, avoidance of ionizing radiation or iodinated contrast media, and more recently, by application of several functional imaging techniques (i.e., diffusion-weighted sequences, hepatobiliary contrast agents, perfusion imaging, magnetic resonance (MR)-elastography, and radiomics analysis). MR functional imaging techniques are extensively used both in routine practice and in the field of clinical and pre-clinical research because, through a qualitative rather than quantitative approach, they can offer valuable information about tumor tissue and tissue architecture, cellular biomarkers related to the hepatocellular functions, or tissue vascularization profiles related to tumor and tissue biology. This kind of approach offers in vivo physiological parameters, capable of evaluating physiological and pathological modifications of tissues, by the analysis of quantitative data that could be used in tumor detection, characterization, treatment selection, and follow-up, in addition to those obtained from standard morphological imaging. In this review we provide an overview of recent advanced techniques in MR for the diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma, and their role in the assessment of response treatment evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: Cirrhosis; Contrast media; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver; Magnetic resonance; Transarterial chemoembolization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29930464 PMCID: PMC6010944 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i23.2413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Schematic comparison between diffusion weighted images (on the left) and perfusion maps (on the right) showing the meaning from the pathophysiological point of view of the two different functional magnetic resonance techniques. The diffusion offers qualitative information strictly related to tissue cellularity, while perfusion sequences offer qualitative information about tissue vascularization.
Gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent
| Gadoterate-meglumine | ECFAs | Standard | macrocyclic | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Gadobutrol | ECFAs | Standard | macrocyclic | 1.0 | 0.1 |
| Gadoteridol | ECFAs | Standard | macrocyclic | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Gadopentetate- dimeglumine | ECFAs | Standard | Linear | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Gadoversetamide | ECFAs | Standard | Linear | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Gadodiamide | ECFAs | Standard | Linear | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Gadofosfaset-trisodium | BPCAs | High | Linear | 0.25 | 0.03 |
| Gadobenate- dimeglumine | HCAs | High | Linear | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Gadoxetate-disodium | HCAs | High | Linear | 0.25 | 0.025 |
ECFAs: Extracellular fluid agents; BPCAs: Blood pool agents; HCAs: Hepatocyte-specific contrast agents.
Figure 2Schematic representation showing dynamic contrast enhanced sequences, diffusion weighted images, and T2-weighted features in typical, green, and hypovascular hepatocellular carcinoma, comparing information from extracellular contrast agent and hepatobiliary contrast agent. ECA: Extracellular contrast agent; HBA: Hepatobiliary contrast agent; DWI: Diffusion weighted images.
Magnetic resonance imaging perfusion with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma, focus on diagnosis, characterization, response to therapy, and prognosis
| Diagnosis and characterization | ||||
| Taouli et al[ | 2013 | 1.5 T | Gadobenate-dimeglumine and gadopentetate-dimeglumine | AF, VF, ART, DV, MTT |
| Chen et al[ | 2017 | 3 T | GD-EOB-DTPA | Ktrans, Kep, iAUC, max-Ktrans |
| Jajamovich et al[ | 2016 | 3 T | Gadobenate-dimeglumine | ART, K trans, ve, kep, τ |
| Abdullah et al[ | 2008 | 1.5 T | Gadoterate-dimeglumine | HPI, MTT, DV, TF, AF, PF |
| Response to therapy | ||||
| Ippolito et al[ | 2016 | 1.5 T | GD-EOB-DTPA | ME, MRE, RAE, RE, RLE, RVE, TTP |
| Taouli et al[ | 2013 | 1.5 T | Gadobenate-dimeglumine and Gadopentetate-dimeglumine | AF, VF, ART, DV, MTT |
| Chen et al[ | 2016 | 1.5 T | Gadodiamide | Peak, Slope, AUC, Ktrans, Kep, Ve |
| Prognosis | ||||
| Chen et al[ | 2016 | 1.5 T | Gadodiamide | Peak, Slope, AUC, Ktrans, Kep, Ve |
| Chen et al[ | 2016 | 1.5 T | Gadodiamide | ART, AF, PF, TF, MTT, DV, PEAK, SLOPE, AUC |
ART: Arterial fraction; K trans: Contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space; VE: Extravascular extracellular volume fraction; Kep: Contrast agent intravasation rate constant; τ: Mean intracellular water molecule lifetime; ME: Maximum enhancement; MRE: Maximum relative enhancement; RAE: Relative arterial enhancement; RE: Relative enhancement; RLE: Relative late enhancement; RVE: Relative venous enhancement; TTP: Time to peak; HPI: Hepatic perfusion index; MTT: Mean transit time; DV: Distribution volume; TF: Total blood flow; AF: Arterial blood flow; PF: Portal blood flow; AUC: Area under the gadolinium distribution-time curve.
Figure 3Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced magnetic resonance images of a 67-year-old male patient with large hepatocellular carcinoma lesion in the right liver lobe. Panels A-B: T1-weighted sequences “in and out of phase” demonstrate a heterogeneous mass slightly hypointense without a signal drop in “out of phase” sequence. Panels C-D: T2-weighted image without and with fat saturation demonstrates a slightly hyperintense mass with a central, homogeneous hyperintense area, as per necrosis. Panels E-H: Dynamic contrast-enhanced images delineate the typical contrast behavior of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): Hyperenhancement during the arterial phase (F) followed by wash-out in portal and delayed phase (G-H). In the hepatobiliary phase image 20 min after Gd-EOB-DTPA injection the nodule appears highly hypointense compared with the surrounding enhanced liver (panel I). Panel J: On the diffusion weighted image, HCC lesion is hyperintense due to the restriction of water diffusion. Panel K-L: Perfusion images derived from semiquantitative analysis (relative arterial enhancement and maximum enhancement) the HCC is characterized by high vascularity intensity signals, shown as hot-spots signals.
Figure 4Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced magnetic resonance images of a 61-year-old patient with hepatocellular carcinoma nodule in the VII segment of the liver. Panels A-B: A single nodule slightly hypointense on the T1-weighted “in phase” sequence (A) with a signal drop in the “out of phase” sequence, as per fat deposition. Panels C-D: On T2-weighted image without and with fat saturation the nodule appears slightly hyperintense. Panels E-H: Dynamic contrast-enhanced images demonstrate the typical contrast behavior of hepatocellular carcinoma: Which appear hypervascular during the arterial phase (F) with wash-out in portal and delayed phase (G-H). Panel I-J: Diffusion weighted image (DWI) shows the hyperintense pattern of the lesion which appear hypointense on the relative apparent diffusion coefficient map (arrowhead). Previously treated lesion with transarterial chemoembolization is recognizable, in panel A-E-F-G-H, at V segment of the liver (arrow). No any restriction of signal intensity is evident on DWI (panel I-J).