Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on proton density fat fraction using the six-echo Dixon method in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 14 March 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether disodium gadoxetate (Gd-EOB-DTPA) affects proton density fat fractions (PDFFs) during use of the multiecho Dixon (meDixon) method in phantom and simulation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at 3 T. Fat–water phantoms comprising vegetable fat–water emulsions with varying fat volume percentages (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50) and Gd-EOB-DTPA concentrations (0 and 0.4 mM) were prepared. Phantoms without Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as precontrast, and those with Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as postcontrast. All phantoms were scanned with a 3 T MRI system using the meDixon method, and precontrast and postcontrast PDFFs were calculated. Simulated pre and postcontrast PDFFs in the liver were calculated using a theoretical formula. The relationship between PDFFs measured in the pre and postcontrast phantoms was evaluated using linear regression and Bland–Altman analysis. The regression analysis comparing the pre and postcontrast PDFFs yielded a slope of 0.77 (P < 0.001). The PDFFs on the postcontrast phantom were smaller than those on the precontrast phantom. The mean difference between the PDFFs on the pre and postcontrast phantoms was 6.12% (95% confidence interval 3.13 to 9.10%; limits of agreement −0.88 to 13.11%). The simulated PDFF on the postcontrast phantom was smaller than that on the precontrast phantom. We demonstrated that the PDFF measured using the meDixon was smaller on postcontrast than on precontrast at 3 T, if a low flip angle was used. This tendency was also seen in the simulation study results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 14 March 2018

    A diameter of glass bottles in phantoms in the above article (2 cm) was incorrect. The correct diameter is 4.5 cm.

References

  1. Angulo P. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1221–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams LA, Lymp JF, St Sauver J, et al. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:113–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ratziu V, Bonyhay L, Di Martino V, et al. Survival, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma in obesity-related cryptogenic cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2002;35:1485–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kawamura Y, Arase Y, Ikeda K, et al. Large-scale long-term follow-up study of Japanese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for the onset of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:253–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Piccinino F, Sagenelli E, Pasquale G, Giusti G. Complications following percutaneous liver biopsy. A multicenter retrospective study on 68,276 biopsies. J Hepatol. 1986;2:165–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hayashi T, Saitoh S, Fukuzawa K, et al. Non-invasive assessment of advanced fibrosis using hepatic volume in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatol Res. 2017;47:455–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, et al. Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:1898–906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yokoo T, Shiehmorteza M, Hamilton G, et al. Estimation of hepatic proton-density fat fraction by using MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology. 2011;258:749–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dixon W. Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1984;153:189–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hines CD, Yu H, Shimakawa A, McKenzie CA, Brittain JH, Reeder SB. T1 independent, T 2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: validation in a fat-water-SPIO phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:1215–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kukuk GM, Hittatiya K, Sprinkart AM, et al. Comparison between modified Dixon MRI techniques, MR spectroscopic relaxometry, and different histologic quantification methods in the assessment of hepatic steatosis. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:2869–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yokoo T, Collins JM, Hanna RF, Bydder M, Middleton MS, Sirlin CB. Effects of intravenous gadolinium administration and flip angle on the assessment of liver fat signal fraction with opposed-phase and in-phase imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hernando D, Wells SA, Vigen KK, Reeder SB. Effect of hepatocyte-specific gadolinium-based contrast agents on hepatic fat-fraction and R2(*). Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;33:43–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology. 2004;230:652–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fukuzawa K, Hayashi T, Takahashi J, et al. Evaluation of six-point modified dixon and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for fat quantification: a fat-water-iron phantom study. Radiol Phys Technol. 2017;10:349–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Onoda M, Hyodo T, Murakami T, et al. Optimizing signal intensity correction during evaluation of hepatic parenchymal enhancement on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI: comparison of three methods. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:339–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhong X, Nickel MD, Kannengiesser SA, Dale BM, Kiefer B, Bashir MR. Liver fat quantification using a multi-step adaptive fitting approach with multi-echo GRE imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2014;72:1353–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu CY, McKenzie CA, Yu H, Brittain JH, Reeder SB. Fat quantification with IDEAL gradient echo imaging: correction of bias from T(1) and noise. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58:354–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamilton G, Middleton MS, Cunha GM, Sirlin CB. Effect of gadolinium-based contrast agent on the relaxation properties of water and fat in human liver as measured in vivo by 1H MRS. In: Book of abstracts: 21th Annual meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; 2013. p. 1516.

  21. Mitchell DG, Stolpen AH, Siegelman ES, Bolinger L, Outwater EK. Fatty tissue on opposed-phase MR images: paradoxical suppression of signal intensity by paramagnetic contrast agents. Radiology. 1996;198:351–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing services. This manuscript was partly supported by Akiyoshi Ohtsuka Fellowship of the Japanese Society of Radiological Technology for improvement in English expression of a draft version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8605, Japan

    Tatsuya Hayashi, Jun’ichi Kotoku & Takahide Okamoto

  2. Department of Radiological Technology, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Kei Fukuzawa & Masakatsu Tano

  3. Department of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroshi Kondo, Keiko Toyoda & Hiroshi Oba

  4. Central of Radiology, Teikyo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroshi Onodera, Shuji Toyotaka, Rie Tojo & Shimpei Yano

  5. Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, Ishikawa, Japan

    Tosiaki Miyati

Authors
  1. Tatsuya Hayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kei Fukuzawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroshi Kondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroshi Onodera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuji Toyotaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rie Tojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shimpei Yano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masakatsu Tano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tosiaki Miyati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jun’ichi Kotoku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Takahide Okamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Keiko Toyoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Hiroshi Oba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatsuya Hayashi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent for this study was not required, because no research involving human participants was undertaken by any of the authors.

Additional information

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-018-0450-9.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayashi, T., Fukuzawa, K., Kondo, H. et al. Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on proton density fat fraction using the six-echo Dixon method in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Phys Technol 10, 483–488 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0420-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0420-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation