Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 354–365 | Cite as

The impact of hepatocyte phase imaging from infancy to young adulthood in patients with a known or suspected liver lesion

  • Amy B. Kolbe
  • Daniel J. Podberesky
  • Bin Zhang
  • Alexander J. Towbin
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

Hepatocyte-specific contrast agents are used to help characterize liver lesions. However, there are no studies evaluating the utility of these agents in detecting or diagnosing pediatric liver lesions. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the hepatocyte phase of imaging on lesion detection, tumor staging and diagnostic confidence.

Materials and methods

All patients undergoing an MRI between September 2010 and August 2012 using gadoxetate disodium as the contrast agent were included in this study. Each exam was duplicated so that one copy contained all sequences, including the hepatocyte phase of imaging, and the other copy contained all sequences except the hepatocyte phase of imaging. One reviewer evaluated all exams in a blinded, random fashion. Data tracked included imaging diagnosis, confidence in diagnosis, number of lesions and PRETEXT grade. The imaging diagnosis was compared to histopathology, when available. Data were analyzed for the study population as well as the subset of patients diagnosed with focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH).

Results

There were 112 patients (56 male; mean age: 9.25 years) included in this study. A total of 33 patients had a malignant tumor and the remainder had either a benign lesion or no lesion. The addition of the hepatocyte phase of imaging significantly improved the diagnostic confidence for all patients (P < 0.0001) as well as specifically for patients diagnosed with FNH (P = 0.003). In nearly a quarter of patients, the hepatocyte phase of imaging allowed the reviewer to detect additional lesions (P = 0.005). In the patients with a malignant tumor, the addition of the hepatocyte phase of imaging changed the PRETEXT grade in 7/30 patients although the results were not significant (P = 0.161).

Conclusion

The addition of the hepatocyte phase of imaging helps to improve lesion detection and increase the diagnostic confidence for all liver tumors, as well as for FNH in particular.

Keywords

Hepatocyte‐specific contrast agent Liver tumors Liver Magnetic resonance imaging Children 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Adeyiga AO, Lee EY, Eisenberg RL (2012) Focal hepatic masses in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W422–W440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung EM, Cube R, Lewis RB et al (2010) From the archives of the AFIP: pediatric liver masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation part 1. Benign tumors. Radiographics 30:801–826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung EM, Lattin GE Jr, Cube R et al (2011) From the archives of the AFIP: pediatric liver masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Part 2. Malignant tumors. Radiographics 31:483–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Das CJ, Dhingra S, Gupta AK et al (2009) Imaging of paediatric liver tumours with pathological correlation. Clin Radiol 64:1015–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyers AB, Towbin AJ, Serai S et al (2011) Characterization of pediatric liver lesions with gadoxetate disodium. Pediatr Radiol 41:1183–1197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benz-Bohm G, Hero B, Gossmann A et al (2010) Focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver in longterm survivors of neuroblastoma: how much diagnostic imaging is necessary? Eur J Radiol 74:e1–e5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joyner BL Jr, Levin TL, Goyal RK et al (2005) Focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: a sequela of tumor therapy. Pediatr Radiol 35:1234–1239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith EA, Salisbury S, Martin R et al (2012) Incidence and etiology of new liver lesions in pediatric patients previously treated for malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:186–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frydrychowicz A, Lubner MG, Brown JJ et al (2012) Hepatobiliary MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:492–511CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S et al (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Watanabe H et al (2010) Hepatic hemangioma and metastasis: differentiation with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced 3-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:941–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grieser C, Steffen IG, Seehofer D et al (2013) Histopathologically confirmed focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI characteristics. Magn Reson Imaging 31:755–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bieze M, van den Esschert JW, Nio CY et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in differentiating hepatocellular adenoma from focal nodular hyperplasia: prospective study of the additional value of gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:26–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grazioli L, Bondioni MP, Haradome H et al (2012) Hepatocellular adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia: value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging in differential diagnosis. Radiology 262:520–529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeong HT, Kim MJ, Park MS et al (2012) Detection of liver metastases using gadoxetic-enhanced dynamic and 10- and 20-minute delayed phase MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:635–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi JY, Choi JS, Kim MJ et al (2010) Detection of hepatic hypovascular metastases: 3D gradient echo MRI using a hepatobiliary contrast agent. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:571–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shimada K, Isoda H, Hirokawa Y et al (2010) Comparison of gadolinium-EOB-DTPA-enhanced and diffusion-weighted liver MRI for detection of small hepatic metastases. Eur J Radiol 20:2690–2698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyers AB, Towbin AJ, Geller JI et al (2012) Hepatoblastoma imaging with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI–typical, atypical, pre- and post-treatment evaluation. Pediatr Radiol 42:859–866CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tamrazi A, Vasanawala SS (2011) Functional hepatobiliary MR imaging in children. Pediatr Radiol 41:1250–1258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roebuck DJ, Aronson D, Clapuyt P et al (2007) 2005 PRETEXT: a revised staging system for primary malignant liver tumours of childhood developed by the SIOPEL group. Pediatr Radiol 37:123–132CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB et al (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:13–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cruite I, Schroeder M, Merkle EM et al (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 2, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the cirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:29–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gupta A, Sheridan RM, Towbin A et al (2013) Multifocal hepatic neoplasia in 3 children with APC gene mutation. Am J Surg Pathol 37:1058–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Towbin AJ, Luo GG, Yin H et al (2011) Focal nodular hyperplasia in children, adolescents, and young adults. Pediatr Radiol 41:341–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy B. Kolbe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel J. Podberesky
    • 1
  • Bin Zhang
    • 3
  • Alexander J. Towbin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics & EpidemiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations