Daniel Stocker1,2, Stefanie Hectors1,3, Octavia Bane1,3, Naik Vietti-Violi1,4, Daniela Said1,5, Paul Kennedy1,3, Jordan Cuevas1,3, Guilherme M Cunha6, Claude B Sirlin6, Kathryn J Fowler6, Sara Lewis1,3, Bachir Taouli7,8. 1. BioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 2. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 5. Department of Radiology, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. 6. Liver Imaging Group, Radiology, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 7. BioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. bachir.taouli@mountsinai.org. 8. Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. bachir.taouli@mountsinai.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the quality of the arterial input function (AIF) during dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI of the liver and (2) to quantify perfusion parameters of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver parenchyma during the first 3 min post-contrast injection with DCE-MRI using gadoxetate disodium compared to gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) in different patient populations. METHODS: In this prospective study, we evaluated 66 patients with 83 HCCs who underwent DCE-MRI, using gadoxetate disodium (group 1, n = 28) or Gd-BOPTA (group 2, n = 38). AIF qualitative and quantitative features were assessed. Perfusion parameters (based on the initial 3 min post-contrast) were extracted in tumours and liver parenchyma, including model-free parameters (time-to-peak enhancement (TTP), time-to-washout) and modelled parameters (arterial flow (Fa), portal venous flow (Fp), total flow (Ft), arterial fraction, mean transit time (MTT), distribution volume (DV)). In addition, lesion-to-liver contrast ratios (LLCRs) were measured. Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: AIF quality, modelled and model-free perfusion parameters in HCC were similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.054-0.932). Liver parenchymal flow was lower and liver enhancement occurred later in group 1 vs group 2 (Fp, p = 0.002; Ft, p = 0.001; TTP, MTT, all p < 0.001), while there were no significant differences in tumour LLCR (max. positive LLCR, p = 0.230; max. negative LLCR, p = 0.317). CONCLUSION: Gadoxetate disodium provides comparable AIF quality and HCC perfusion parameters compared to Gd-BOPTA during dynamic phases. Despite delayed and decreased liver enhancement with gadoxetate disodium, LLCRs were equivalent between contrast agents, indicating similar tumour conspicuity. KEY POINTS: • Arterial input function quality, modelled, and model-free dynamic parameters measured in hepatocellular carcinoma are similar in patients receiving gadoxetate disodium or gadobenate dimeglumine during the first 3 min post injection. • Gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine show similar lesion-to-liver contrast ratios during dynamic phases in patients with HCC. • There is lower portal and lower total hepatic flow and longer hepatic mean transit time and time-to-peak with gadoxetate disodium compared to gadobenate dimeglumine.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the quality of the arterial input function (AIF) during dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI of the liver and (2) to quantify perfusion parameters of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver parenchyma during the first 3 min post-contrast injection with DCE-MRI using gadoxetate disodium compared to gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) in different patient populations. METHODS: In this prospective study, we evaluated 66 patients with 83 HCCs who underwent DCE-MRI, using gadoxetate disodium (group 1, n = 28) or Gd-BOPTA (group 2, n = 38). AIF qualitative and quantitative features were assessed. Perfusion parameters (based on the initial 3 min post-contrast) were extracted in tumours and liver parenchyma, including model-free parameters (time-to-peak enhancement (TTP), time-to-washout) and modelled parameters (arterial flow (Fa), portal venous flow (Fp), total flow (Ft), arterial fraction, mean transit time (MTT), distribution volume (DV)). In addition, lesion-to-liver contrast ratios (LLCRs) were measured. Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: AIF quality, modelled and model-free perfusion parameters in HCC were similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.054-0.932). Liver parenchymal flow was lower and liver enhancement occurred later in group 1 vs group 2 (Fp, p = 0.002; Ft, p = 0.001; TTP, MTT, all p < 0.001), while there were no significant differences in tumour LLCR (max. positive LLCR, p = 0.230; max. negative LLCR, p = 0.317). CONCLUSION:Gadoxetate disodium provides comparable AIF quality and HCC perfusion parameters compared to Gd-BOPTA during dynamic phases. Despite delayed and decreased liver enhancement with gadoxetate disodium, LLCRs were equivalent between contrast agents, indicating similar tumour conspicuity. KEY POINTS: • Arterial input function quality, modelled, and model-free dynamic parameters measured in hepatocellular carcinoma are similar in patients receiving gadoxetate disodium or gadobenate dimeglumine during the first 3 min post injection. • Gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine show similar lesion-to-liver contrast ratios during dynamic phases in patients with HCC. • There is lower portal and lower total hepatic flow and longer hepatic mean transit time and time-to-peak with gadoxetate disodium compared to gadobenate dimeglumine.
Authors: J Petersein; A Spinazzi; A Giovagnoni; P Soyer; F Terrier; R Lencioni; C Bartolozzi; L Grazioli; A Chiesa; R Manfredi; P Marano; E L Van Persijn Van Meerten; J L Bloem; C Petre; G Marchal; A Greco; M T McNamara; A Heuck; M Reiser; M Laniado; C Claussen; H E Daldrup; E Rummeny; M A Kirchin; G Pirovano; B Hamm Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T J Vogl; S Kümmel; R Hammerstingl; M Schellenbeck; G Schumacher; T Balzer; W Schwarz; P K Müller; W O Bechstein; M G Mack; O Söllner; R Felix Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Riham H El Khouli; Katarzyna J Macura; Michael A Jacobs; Tarek H Khalil; Ihab R Kamel; Andrew Dwyer; David A Bluemke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P Reimer; E J Rummeny; K Shamsi; T Balzer; H E Daldrup; B Tombach; T Hesse; T Berns; P E Peters Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 11.105