Literature DB >> 30555635

Diagnostic performance of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for evaluation of liver dysfunction: a multivariable analysis of 3T MRI sequences.

Niklas Verloh1, Kirsten Utpatel2, Florian Zeman3, Claudia Fellner1, Hans J Schlitt4, Martina Müller5, Christian Stroszczynski1, Matthias Evert2, Philipp Wiggermann1,6, Michael Haimerl1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a multiparametric gadolinium ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI examination for the estimation of liver dysfunction classified by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.
RESULTS: Liver dysfunction can be assessed by different methods. In a logistic regression analysis, T1- and T2-weighted images were affected by impaired liver function. In the assessment of liver dysfunction, the reduction rate in T1 mapping sequences showed a significant correlation in simple and multiple logistic regression.
CONCLUSION: Changes in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI between plain images and images obtained during the hepatobiliary phase allowed good prediction of liver dysfunction, especially when using T1 mapping sequences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 199 patients underwent contrast-enhanced MRI with a hepatocyte-specific contrast agent at 3T. In the multivariable analysis, the full range of available MRI sequences was used to estimate the liver dysfunction of patients with various MELD scores.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MELD score; abdomen; liver; magnetic resonance imaging; multiparametric examination

Year:  2018        PMID: 30555635      PMCID: PMC6284745          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.26368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


INTRODUCTION

The assessment of liver function is essential for determining the prognosis and clinical management of patients with chronic liver disease and for patients undergoing liver surgery [1, 2]. Several tests have been proposed or are used in daily clinical practice to assess liver function, ranging from tests based on laboratory values to metabolic tests. A widely used assessment is the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. The MELD score combines several biochemical values (serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and the international normalized ratio for prothrombin time) to determine liver function, serving as an indicator for patient treatment [3]. The most common metabolic test is the indocyanine green (ICG) clearance test, which uses an optical measurement technique to determine the blood clearance rate of intravenously injected ICG [4, 5]. New non-invasive technics are rising to analyze liver fibrosis, for example, Afdhal et al. showed that FibroScan (vibration-controlled transient elastography) provides an accurate assessment of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B or C in comparison to histology [6]. These tests are suitable for measurement of global liver function; however, heterogeneous liver function with areas of regional dysfunction or hepatic compensation of local defects can only be assessed non-invasively with imaging techniques. Abdominal ultrasound is useful for image-based diagnosis of liver function. Ultrasound elastography (US-RTE) can be used to measure liver stiffness, thus allowing an indirect assessment of liver function [7, 8]. However, the diagnostic value of US-RTE is restricted by limited reproducibility and the examiner-dependence of the method [9]. In addition to ultrasound imaging, MRI of the liver currently represents the gold standard of diagnostic methods. Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between hepatic gadolinium ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTP) uptake and liver function. A common analysis is the measurement of the signal intensity (SI) of T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breathhold examination- (VIBE-) sequences. Regarding SI-based measurements after Gd-EOB-DTPA administration, various SI ratios, such as the relative enhancement of the liver corrected by the spleen or muscle, have been used to assess liver function [10-15]. The evaluation of T1 relaxation time is an alternative approach to the direct measurement of SI and has recently gained attention [12, 16–19]. Haimerl et al. recently compared different SI and T1 relaxometry scores to detect the most relevant parameter derived from Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for assessment of liver function [20]. Scores based on T1 relaxometry were superior to SI-based indices for the assessment of liver function. In addition to T1-weighted sequence analysis, some authors have reported the benefit of diffusion-weighted MRI in analyzing liver function [21-24]. The use of other MRI sequences such as T2-weighted images has not been analyzed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for the estimation of liver classified by the MELD score. Instead of focusing on a single MRI sequence, we examined the full range of available MRI sequences to estimate liver function in a multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics stratified by the MELD score are summarized in Table 1. Patients were subdivided into two groups: normal liver function (NLF) and impaired liver function group (ILF). The mean MELD score was 7.7 (± 1.3) for NLF and 14.9 (± 3.7) for the ILF.
Table 1

Patient characteristics

All (n = 199)NLF (n = 142)ILF (n = 57)
Age (years)60.0 ± 12.959.8 ± 13.560.6 ± 11.3
Sex, n (%)
 Male153 (77)107 (75)46 (81)
 Female46 (23)35 (25)11 (19)
Weight (kg)83.1 ± 16.284.9 ± 17.783.5 ± 12.1
Height (m)1.7 ± 0.11.7 ± 0.11.8 ± 0.1
MELD score (range)9.8 ± 4.0 (6–30)7.7 8 ± 1.3 (6–10)14.9 ± 3.7 (11–30)

Table 1 shows the patient characteristics for the subgroups.

Data presented as the means ± standard deviation.

NLF: Normal liver function.

ILF: Impaired liver function.

Table 1 shows the patient characteristics for the subgroups. Data presented as the means ± standard deviation. NLF: Normal liver function. ILF: Impaired liver function. The logistic regression analysis, with the MELD score as a dependent variable, (Table 2) showed that 6 of the 13 MR sequences including all relative scores were able to classify significantly (p < 0.05) liver dysfunction (Table 2).
Table 2

Logistic regression

Independent variableNLF (n = 142)ILF (n = 57)OR (95%-CI)AUCp-value
T1 mapping 3D
 T1 plain [ms]770.9 ± 130.1758.1 ± 143.60.99 (0.97, 1.02)**0.5840.544
T1 HBP [ms]345.9 ± 93.6460.5 ± 129.21.09 (1.06, 1.13)**0.751≤0.001
RR (plain and HBP)0.5 ± 0.10.4 ± 0.10.31 (0.22, 0.44)*0.825≤0.001
T1 3D VIBE
In-phase plain [a.u.]215.5 ± 70.7218.7 ± 42.80.88 (0.81, 0.96)**0.6050.005
 Opposed-phase plain [a.u.]237.4 ± 37.6222.1 ± 37.91.02 (0.97, 1.06)**0.5740.517
 fs plain [a.u.]187.6 ± 32.9187.5 ± 30.61.00 (0.91, 1.10)**0.5130.987
fs HBP [a.u.]357.8 ± 82.6283.1 ± 60.50.86 (0.81, 0.91)**0.772≤0.001
RE (fs plain and HBP)0.9 ± 0.30.5 ± 0.30.67 (0.59, 0.77)*0.820≤0.001
T2 HASTE271.3 ± 70.8240.1 ± 68.20.94 (0.89, 0.98)**0.6220.006
T2 BLADE fs160.9 ± 55.5168.3 ± 52.11.02 (0.97, 1.08)**0.5470.390
ADC (mm2/s)1.164 × 10−3 ± 0.297 × 10−31.215 × 10−3 ± 0.209 × 10−31.07 (0.96, 1.21)0.5450.232

Table 2 shows the results of the logistic regression analyses with the MELD score as a dependent variable.

NLF: Normal liver function; ILF: Impaired liver function.

OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; AUC: Area under the curve, p: Level of significance.

*per 0.1, **per 10 units.

Table 2 shows the results of the logistic regression analyses with the MELD score as a dependent variable. NLF: Normal liver function; ILF: Impaired liver function. OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; AUC: Area under the curve, p: Level of significance. *per 0.1, **per 10 units. The MR scores and MR sequences with a significant association were included in a multiple logistic regression analysis. The result is shown in Table 3. In this analysis, only the reduction rate between the 3D T1 mapping sequence remained a significant influencing factor for the MELD score (Figure 1).
Table 3

Multiple logistic regression

Independent variableOR (95%-CI)p-value
T1 mapping 3D HBP1.03 (0.98, 1.08)**0.307
RR T1 mapping 3D (plain and HBP)0.41 (0.21, 0.82)*0.012
T1 3D VIBE in plain0.92 (0.80, 1.05)**0.219
T1 3D VIBE fs HBP1.03 (0.93, 1.15)**0.555
RE T1 3D VIBE (fs plain and HBP)0.92 (0.73, 1.15)*0.446
T2 HASTE0.96 (0.90, 1.02)**0.214

Table 3 shows the results of the multiple logistic regression analysis with the MELD score as a dependent variable.

OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; p: Level of significance.

*per 0.1, **per 10 units.

Figure 1

Scatterplot of the reduction rate between plain and contrast enhanced of T1 mapping sequences in correlation to the MELD score

The solid line indicates the cut off between normal (NLF) and impaired liver function (ILF).

Table 3 shows the results of the multiple logistic regression analysis with the MELD score as a dependent variable. OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; p: Level of significance. *per 0.1, **per 10 units.

Scatterplot of the reduction rate between plain and contrast enhanced of T1 mapping sequences in correlation to the MELD score

The solid line indicates the cut off between normal (NLF) and impaired liver function (ILF).

DISCUSSION

Our results showed that liver dysfunction can be assessed by different methods. The logistic regression analysis revealed, that the T1- and T2-weighted images were affected by impaired liver function. Changes in liver function are often related to liver fibrosis. Liver fibrosis is characterized by destruction of the lobular and vascular architecture and nodular regeneration of liver tissue. Fibrosis of liver tissue results in extracellular accumulation of collagen fibers, proteoglycans, and other macromolecules [25]. Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) measures the diffusion of water molecules in biological tissues and quantifies the water diffusion processes with the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) [26-28]. Theoretically, extracellular collagen fibers, glucosamine, and proteoglycans could inhibit the molecular diffusion of water, resulting in reduced diffusion [26, 28–30]. However, no significant correlation was found in the ADC analysis for this patient cohort. Notably, the plain in-phase images of the T1-weighted 3D VIBE sequence were able to classify liver dysfunction significantly, while the plain fat suppressed (fs) T1-weighted sequence showed no significant classification. This finding might be due to fat suppression, indicating an impact of fat tissue on liver function. This idea is supported by the fact that the T2-weighted half Fourier single shot turbo spinecho (HASTE) sequence (no fat suppression) also showed a significant result in classifying liver dysfunction. However, in the present study, this influence was not fully defined, and further studies are needed. Many technical parameters, such as the radiofrequency amplifier, receiver coils, B1-field heterogeneity, repetition times (TR) and respiratory motion, influence absolute values of SI measurements [19, 31, 32]. To overcome this influence, the sequences must be corrected; we calculated the relative change in SI for plain and contrast-enhanced images to measure liver function using T1-weighted images after applying the contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. The liver-specific contrast agent Gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA; Primovist®, Bayer Healthcare, Berlin) is an ionic complex consisting of gadolinium (III) and the ligand ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (EOB-DTPA). Gadolinium shortens the spin-lattice relaxation (T1) time in the corresponding tissue, leading to an increase in SI on T1-weighted images [33-36]. The biochemical properties allow a characteristic late phase (HBP) [33–35, 37]. The ethoxybenzyl group promotes the transport of Gd-EOB-DTPA into hepatocytes through organ-anion transporters (OATPB1/B3) located in the sinusoids [38-41], while Gd-EOB-DTPA is excreted at the canalicular membrane by ATP-dependent multidrug resistance protein 2 (MRP2) [42, 43]. Excretion of Gd-EOB-DTPA into the biliary ducts is limited, which causes a temporary enhancement in liver cells [44]. In patients with normal liver parenchyma, the hepatocyte-specific contrast agent shows specific enhancement in the liver parenchyma [37-40]. Since the accumulation of Gd-EOB-DTPA depends on the number of functioning hepatocytes, in the case of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, the enhancement is reduced, and changes in the liver parenchyma are reflected by Gd-EOB-DTPA uptake [15, 45–48]. While the plain fs T1-weighted images showed no significant value for classifying liver dysfunction, the contrast enhancement in the HBP images showed a significant result. This correlation was even stronger when calculating the relative change in SI. However, neither the fs T1-weighted images during the HBP nor the RE remained significant influencing factors in the multiple logistic regression. In the plain T1 maps, no significant correlation with liver dysfunction, classified by the MELD score, could be observed. Controversy currently exists regarding the extent to which the plain T1 relaxation time of the liver is influenced by changes in the liver parenchyma. The T1 relaxation time can be prolonged in plain images in cases of tissue remodeling in liver fibrosis, characterized by inflammation and consequent edema [19, 49, 50]. In contrast, in the advanced stages of liver fibrosis, decreased T1 relaxation times have been reported [51]. This reduction in T1 relaxation time might be due to increased deposition of paramagnetic macromolecules such as collagen tissue that have a lower water content [52, 53]. In simple and multiple logistic regression, we showed that liver dysfunction can be predicted, using the reduction rate in the T1 sequences. Regarding the question of whether SI-based-scores or T1 relaxation time scores should be used, we agree with Haimerl et al. [20] - a more reliable outcome can be found using T1 mapping. In conclusion, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI allowed good prediction of liver dysfunction. It may serve as an appropriate image-based tool for staging liver function before liver surgery, detecting silent disease, or revealing existing disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient inclusion

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study. Between 03/2016 and 12/2016, 215 Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI examinations of the liver were performed. Sixteen patients were excluded from the study due to inability to complete the full MRI protocol or the presence of severe motion artifacts as a result of poor breath-holding technique. Finally, 199 patients were included in this study; the corresponding patient characteristics are listed in Table 1.

Evaluation of liver function (using established clinical methods)

We used an established clinical scoring system, the MELD score, to assess total liver function. The MELD score is calculated using biochemical blood parameters as follows: To avoid negative scores, any value less than 1 was given a value of 1 (e.g., if the serum bilirubin value was 0.6, a value of 1.0 was used). Subsequently, the patients were divided into two groups according to their liver function as determined by the MELD score. Following the approach described previously by Verloh et al., a MELD score below ten was considered indicative of normal liver function, and a MELD score above 10 indicated impaired liver function [12]. Patients with impaired liver function (n = 57) had different diagnostic assumptions: 26 patients with ethyl-induced liver damage, 17 patients with chronic viral infection, five patients with a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, three patients with autoimmune disease, six patients with other diseases associated with an impaired liver function such as sclerosing cholangitis.

MRI

All imaging was performed using a clinical whole body 3T system (MAGNETOM Skyra, Siemens Healthcare). A combination of body and spine array coil elements (18-channel body matrix coil, 24-channel spine matrix coil) was used for signal reception. Images were acquired using various sequences before (native) and 20 min after contrast agent administration (hepatobiliary phase, HBP). All MR sequences with their respective parameters are shown in the Supplementary Materials (Supplementary Table 1). Gd-EOB-DTPA (Primovist; Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany) was used as the liver-specific contrast agent and was administered via bolus injection (0.1 ml/kg body weight) with a flow rate of 1 ml/s and was subsequently flushed with 20 ml NaCl.

Image analysis

The mean SI values on T1-weighted images and the T1 relaxation times on T1 maps of the liver were measured using operator-defined regions of interest (ROIs). Four circular ROIs were manually positioned by an experienced radiologist in the liver parenchyma at identical locations in all sequences (see the Supplementary Materials for details) at the level of the portal fork, three in right liver lobe, one in the left liver lobe. Visible vessels, liver lesions or imaging artifacts were excluded. The sizes of the ROIs ranged from 1.0 to 2.5 cm2, attempting to primarily take the largest diameter. Focal liver parenchyma damage was not found in any of the patients. ROIs were manually adjusted between sequences before and after Gd-EOB-DTPA administration in the case of patient movement. The mean values of these ROIs were then calculated and were considered representative for the entire liver. Relative changes between the plain and contrast-enhanced series during the HBP were calculated as follows:

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 24, Chicago, IL) and R 3.2.1. All data are presented as means ± standard deviation if not specified otherwise. Logistic regression analyses of MRI sequences were used to determine their assessment of liver function as classified according to the MELD score. Then, multiple logistic regression of all significant values (inclusion criterion: p ≤ 0.05) was performed. The statistical significance level was set to 0.05 (two-sided).
  53 in total

1.  Assessment of hepatic perfusion parameters with dynamic MRI.

Authors:  R Materne; A M Smith; F Peeters; J P Dehoux; A Keyeux; Y Horsmans; B E Van Beers
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 2.  Diffusion MR imaging: clinical applications.

Authors:  D Le Bihan; R Turner; P Douek; N Patronas
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.

Authors:  A Jackson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Hepatic uptake of the magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent gadoxetate by the organic anion transporting polypeptide Oatp1.

Authors:  J E van Montfoort; B Stieger; D K Meijer; H J Weinmann; P J Meier; K E Fattinger
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.030

5.  Diffusion-weighted single-shot echoplanar MR imaging for liver disease.

Authors:  T Kim; T Murakami; S Takahashi; M Hori; K Tsuda; H Nakamura
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Quantitative evaluation of liver function with MRI Using Gd-EOB-DTPA.

Authors:  Hun-Kyu Ryeom; Seong-Hun Kim; Jong-Yeol Kim; Hye-Jeong Kim; Jong-Min Lee; Yong-Min Chang; Yong-Sun Kim; Duk-Sik Kang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2004 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  [Diagnosis and quantification of hepatic fibrosis with diffusion weighted MR imaging: preliminary results].

Authors:  C Aubé; P X Racineux; J Lebigot; F Oberti; V Croquet; C Argaud; P Calès; C Caron
Journal:  J Radiol       Date:  2004-03

8.  Molecular mechanisms for the hepatic uptake of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents.

Authors:  L Pascolo; F Cupelli; P L Anelli; V Lorusso; M Visigalli; F Uggeri; C Tiribelli
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  1999-04-21       Impact factor: 3.575

9.  The small remnant liver after major liver resection: how common and how relevant?

Authors:  Cengizhan Yigitler; Olivier Farges; Reza Kianmanesh; Jean-Marc Regimbeau; Eddie K Abdalla; Jacques Belghiti
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.799

10.  Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-DTPA, a new liver-specific magnetic resonance contrast agent. Kinetic and enhancement patterns in normal and cholestatic rats.

Authors:  O Clément; A Mühler; V Vexler; Y Berthezène; R C Brasch
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 6.016

View more
  5 in total

1.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Based on Imaging Data for Preoperative Prediction of Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jian Zhang; Shenglan Huang; Yongkang Xu; Jianbing Wu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 6.244

2.  T1 reduction rate with Gd-EOB-DTPA determines liver function on both 1.5 T and 3 T MRI.

Authors:  Verena Carola Obmann; Damiano Catucci; Annalisa Berzigotti; Christoph Gräni; Lukas Ebner; Johannes Thomas Heverhagen; Andreas Christe; Adrian Thomas Huber
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 3.  Assessment of Liver Function With MRI: Where Do We Stand?

Authors:  Carolina Río Bártulos; Karin Senk; Mona Schumacher; Jan Plath; Nico Kaiser; Ragnar Bade; Jan Woetzel; Philipp Wiggermann
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-04-06

4.  MELIF, a Fully Automated Liver Function Score Calculated from Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced MR Images: Diagnostic Performance vs. the MELD Score.

Authors:  Carolina Río Bártulos; Karin Senk; Ragnar Bade; Mona Schumacher; Jan Plath; Nico Kaiser; Isabel Wiesinger; Sylvia Thurn; Christian Stroszczynski; Abdelouahed El Mountassir; Mathis Planert; Jan Woetzel; Philipp Wiggermann
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-20

5.  Radiomics and nomogram of magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in small hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Yi-Di Chen; Ling Zhang; Zhi-Peng Zhou; Bin Lin; Zi-Jian Jiang; Cheng Tang; Yi-Wu Dang; Yu-Wei Xia; Bin Song; Li-Ling Long
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 5.374

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.