Yoshifumi Noda1, Satoshi Goshima2, Yukiko Takai3, Nobuyuki Kawai3, Hiroshi Kawada3, Yukichi Tanahashi3, Masayuki Matsuo3. 1. Department of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan. noda1031@gifu-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Hamamatsu University, Hamamatsu, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the detectability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and liver metastases between Gd-EOB-DTPA- and extracellular contrast materials (ECCMs) contrast-enhanced MR imaging contrast. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-two patients with suspected pancreatic disease underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging (EOB group, n = 79) or ECCMs-enhanced MR imaging (ECCM group, n = 193). The ECCM group were administered the following contrast agents: Gd-DTPA (n = 158), Gd-BT-DO3A (n = 28), Gd-DOTA (n = 5), and Gd-DTPA-BMA (n = 2). Signal intensities of pancreatic parenchyma, paraspinal muscle, PDAC (if present), and background noise were measured. The signal intensity ratio (SIR) of the pancreas and tumor-to-pancreas contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were also calculated. If present, the conspicuity of PDAC was evaluated with the arterial dominant phase images. Liver metastases, if present, were also evaluated for all sequences. Qualitative and quantitative imaging parameters were compared between EOB and ECCM groups. RESULTS: SIR of the pancreas (P < 0.001) and CNR (P = 0.0037) were significantly lower in EOB group when compared with the ECCM group. However, the sensitivity (97.1% vs. 93.5%, P = 0.42) and specificity (100.0% vs. 99.2%, P = 1.00) for detecting PDAC were not significant between EOB and ECCM groups. The EOB group showed a significantly greater sensitivity for detecting liver metastases compared with the ECCM group (95.0% vs 84.5%, P = 0.04) when evaluating on a lesion-by-lesion basis. CONCLUSION: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging performed similarly to ECCMs-enhanced MR imaging in detecting PDAC but had better sensitivity in detecting liver metastases.
PURPOSE: To compare the detectability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and liver metastases between Gd-EOB-DTPA- and extracellular contrast materials (ECCMs) contrast-enhanced MR imaging contrast. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-two patients with suspected pancreatic disease underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging (EOB group, n = 79) or ECCMs-enhanced MR imaging (ECCM group, n = 193). The ECCM group were administered the following contrast agents: Gd-DTPA (n = 158), Gd-BT-DO3A (n = 28), Gd-DOTA (n = 5), and Gd-DTPA-BMA (n = 2). Signal intensities of pancreatic parenchyma, paraspinal muscle, PDAC (if present), and background noise were measured. The signal intensity ratio (SIR) of the pancreas and tumor-to-pancreas contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were also calculated. If present, the conspicuity of PDAC was evaluated with the arterial dominant phase images. Liver metastases, if present, were also evaluated for all sequences. Qualitative and quantitative imaging parameters were compared between EOB and ECCM groups. RESULTS: SIR of the pancreas (P < 0.001) and CNR (P = 0.0037) were significantly lower in EOB group when compared with the ECCM group. However, the sensitivity (97.1% vs. 93.5%, P = 0.42) and specificity (100.0% vs. 99.2%, P = 1.00) for detecting PDAC were not significant between EOB and ECCM groups. The EOB group showed a significantly greater sensitivity for detecting liver metastases compared with the ECCM group (95.0% vs 84.5%, P = 0.04) when evaluating on a lesion-by-lesion basis. CONCLUSION:Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging performed similarly to ECCMs-enhanced MR imaging in detecting PDAC but had better sensitivity in detecting liver metastases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contrast materials; Magnetic resonance imaging; Metastasis; Pancreatic Cancer