OBJECTIVES: Increasing awareness of potential side effects from gadolinium-based contrast agents has underlined the need for contrast-free magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Numerous recent articles evaluated the risk of potential brain deposits, with the result that research is putting the focus more on alternative unenhanced imaging techniques. The aim of this study was to determine the need for contrast media for chest MRI in primary staging and follow-up care of lymphoma. METHODS: This monocentric, retrospective study encompassed patients under 25 years of age who had undergone histopathological examination of thoracic lymph nodes and at least one chest MRI examination with unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences. Seven different thoracic lymph node stations including mediastinal, hilar, periclavicular, and axillary regions were evaluated by two readers regarding lesion diameter, number, shape, necrosis, and infiltration of surrounding structures. Findings were categorized into suspicious (> 1 cm; round; necrosis; infiltration) or non-suspicious. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (mean age, 16.0 ± 3.7 yrs) with thoracic Hodgkin (70.6%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (25.5%) and lymphadenopathy (3.9%) were retrospectively included. Most lymph nodes categorized as suspicious were located in the mediastinal station (86.4%). High agreement (κ = 0.81) between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences was found for both suspicious and non-suspicious lymph nodes. Significant (p < 0.001), but small difference (1 mm) was observed only in sizing mediastinal lymph nodes (all other p > 0.05). No significant difference (smallest p = 0.08) was shown for the use of five different types of contrast media. CONCLUSION: MRI in young patients with thoracic lymphoma can safely be done without the use of contrast agent. KEY POINT: • Thoracic magnetic resonance imaging in young lymphoma patients can safely be done without gadolinium-based contrast agents.
OBJECTIVES: Increasing awareness of potential side effects from gadolinium-based contrast agents has underlined the need for contrast-free magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Numerous recent articles evaluated the risk of potential brain deposits, with the result that research is putting the focus more on alternative unenhanced imaging techniques. The aim of this study was to determine the need for contrast media for chest MRI in primary staging and follow-up care of lymphoma. METHODS: This monocentric, retrospective study encompassed patients under 25 years of age who had undergone histopathological examination of thoracic lymph nodes and at least one chest MRI examination with unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences. Seven different thoracic lymph node stations including mediastinal, hilar, periclavicular, and axillary regions were evaluated by two readers regarding lesion diameter, number, shape, necrosis, and infiltration of surrounding structures. Findings were categorized into suspicious (> 1 cm; round; necrosis; infiltration) or non-suspicious. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (mean age, 16.0 ± 3.7 yrs) with thoracic Hodgkin (70.6%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (25.5%) and lymphadenopathy (3.9%) were retrospectively included. Most lymph nodes categorized as suspicious were located in the mediastinal station (86.4%). High agreement (κ = 0.81) between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences was found for both suspicious and non-suspicious lymph nodes. Significant (p < 0.001), but small difference (1 mm) was observed only in sizing mediastinal lymph nodes (all other p > 0.05). No significant difference (smallest p = 0.08) was shown for the use of five different types of contrast media. CONCLUSION: MRI in young patients with thoracic lymphoma can safely be done without the use of contrast agent. KEY POINT: • Thoracic magnetic resonance imaging in young lymphoma patients can safely be done without gadolinium-based contrast agents.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contrast media; Lymphoma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pediatrics
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Robert Haase; Philipp Kickingereder; Philipp Bäumer; Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Daniel Paech; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Angelika Seitz; Martin Bendszus Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Annemieke S Littooij; Thomas C Kwee; Ignasi Barber; Claudio Granata; Malou A Vermoolen; Goya Enríquez; József Zsíros; Shui Yen Soh; Bart de Keizer; Frederik J A Beek; Monique G Hobbelink; Marc B Bierings; Jaap Stoker; Rutger A J Nievelstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas C Kwee; Henriette M E Quarles van Ufford; Frederik J Beek; Taro Takahara; Cuno S Uiterwaal; Marc B Bierings; Inge Ludwig; Rob Fijnheer; Rutger A J Nievelstein Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Chiara Giraudo; Markus Raderer; Georgios Karanikas; Michael Weber; Barbara Kiesewetter; Werner Dolak; Ingrid Simonitsch-Klupp; Marius E Mayerhoefer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Kristy R Kutanzi; Annie Lumen; Igor Koturbash; Isabelle R Miousse Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Stephen J Archibald; Christina Messiou; Anton Staudenherz; Dominik Berzaczy; Heiko Schöder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.813