European Radiology

, 18:457 | Cite as

Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: comparison with intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal liver lesions

  • Renate Hammerstingl
  • Alexander Huppertz
  • Josy Breuer
  • Thomas Balzer
  • Anthony Blakeborough
  • Rick Carter
  • Lluis Castells Fusté
  • Gertraud Heinz-Peer
  • Werner Judmaier
  • Michael Laniado
  • Riccardo M. Manfredi
  • Didier G. Mathieu
  • Dieter Müller
  • Koenraad Mortelè
  • Peter Reimer
  • Maximilian F. Reiser
  • Philip J. Robinson
  • Kohkan Shamsi
  • Michael Strotzer
  • Matthias Taupitz
  • Bernd Tombach
  • Gianluca Valeri
  • Bernhard E. van Beers
  • Thomas J. Vogl
  • For the European EOB-study group


A multicenter study has been employed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the new liver-specific contrast agent gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA, Primovist), as opposed to contrast-enhanced biphasic spiral computed tomography (CT), in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions, compared with a standard of reference (SOR). One hundred and sixty-nine patients with hepatic lesions eligible for surgery underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI as well as CT within 6 weeks. Pathologic evaluation of the liver specimen combined with intraoperative ultrasound established the SOR. Data sets were evaluated on-site (14 investigators) and off-site (three independent blinded readers). Gd-EOB-DTPA was well tolerated. Three hundred and two lesions were detected in 131 patients valid for analysis by SOR. The frequency of correctly detected lesions was significantly higher on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI compared with CT in the clinical evaluation [10.44%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.88, 16.0]. In the blinded reading there was a trend towards Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, not reaching statistical significance (2.14%; 95% CI: −4.32, 8.6). However, the highest rate of correctly detected lesions with a diameter below 1 cm was achieved by Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Differential diagnosis was superior for Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI (82.1%) versus CT (71.0%). A change in surgical therapy was documented in 19 of 131 patients (14.5%) post Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI was superior in the diagnosis and therapeutic management of focal liver lesions compared with CT.


Magnetic resonance imaging Computed tomography Focal liver lesions Liver-specific Hepatobiliary Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI Therapeutic strategy 


  1. 1.
    Vogl TJ, Eichler K, Straub R, Engelmann K, Zangos S, Woitaschek D, Bottger M, Mack MG (2001) Laser-induced thermotherapy of malignant liver tumors: general principals, equipment(s), procedure(s), side effects, complications and results. Eur J Ultrasound 13:117–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lorenz M, Staib-Sebler E, Hochmuth K, Heinrich S, Gog C, Vetter G, Encke A, Muller HH (2000) Surgical resection of liver metastases of colorectal carcinoma: short and long-term results. Semin Oncol 27(Suppl 10):112–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindberg CG, Lundstedt C, Stridbeck H, Traberg KH (1993) Accuracy of CT arterial portography of the liver compared with findings at laparotomy. Acta Radiol 34:139–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heiken JP, Weyman PJ, Lee JK et al (1989) Detection of focal hepatic masses: prospective evaluation with CT, delayed CT, CT during arterial portography and MR imaging. Radiology 171:47–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Hruban RH, Sitzmann JV (1994) Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: detection and false-positive findings with helical CT during arterial portography. Radiology 193:71–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paulson EK, Baker, ME, Hilleren DJ et al (1992) CT arterial portography: causes of technical failure and variable liver enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:745–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuszyk BS, Bluemke DA, Urban BA et al (1996) Portal-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT for the detection of malignant hepatic tumors: sensitivity based on comparison with intraoperative and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:91–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonaldi VM, Bret PM, Reinhold C, Atri M (1995) Helical CT of the liver: value of an early hepatic arterial phase. Radiology 197:357–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollett MD, Jeffrey RB Jr, Nino-Murcia M, Jorgensen MJ, Harris DP (1995) Dual-phase helical CT of the liver: value of arterial phase scans in the detection of small (<1.5 cm) malignant hepatic neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164:879–884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Hoe L, Baert AL, Gryspeerdt S et al (1997) Dual-phase helical CT of the liver: value of an early-phase acquisition in the differential diagnosis of noncystic focal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:1185–1192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paulson EK, McDermott VG, Keogan MT, De-Long DM, Frederick MG, Nelson RC (1998) Carcinoid metastases to the liver: role of triple phase helical CT. Radiology 206:143–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pawluk RS, Tummala S, Brown JJ, Borrello JA (1999) A retrospective analysis of the accuracy of T2-weighted images and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced sequences in the detection and characterization of focal hepatic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:266–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ward J, Naik D, Guthrie A, Wilson D, Robinson PJ (1999) Hepatic lesion detection: comparison of MR imaging after administration of superparamagnetic iron oxide with dual-phase CT by using alternative-free response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 210:459–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Semelka RC, Martin DR, Balci C, Lance T (2001) Focal liver lesions: comparison of dual-phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement. Magn Reson Imaging 13:397–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petersein J, Spinazzi A, Giovagnoni A, Soyer P, Terrier F, Lencioni R, Bartolozzi C, Grazioli L, Chiesa A, Manfredi R, Marano P, Van Persijn Van Meerten EL, Bloem JL, Petre C, Marchal G, Greco A, McNamara MT, Heuck A, Reiser M, Laniado M, Claussen C, Daldrup HE, Rummeny E, Kirchin MA, Pirovano G, Hamm B (2000) Focal liver lesions: evaluation of the efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine in MR imaging-a multicenter phase III clinical study. Radiology 215:727–736Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ros PR, Freeny PC, Harms SE et al (1995) Hepatic MR imaging with ferumoxides : a multicenter clinical trial of the safety and efficacy in the detection of focal hepatic lesions. Radiology 196:481–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Torres CG, Lundby B, Tufte Sterud A, McGill S, Gordon PB, Bjerknes HS (1997) MnDPDP for MR imaging of the liver: results from the European phase III studies. Acta Radiol 38:631–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vogl TJ, Kümmel S, Hammerstingl R, Schellenbeck M, Schumacher G, Balzer T, Schwarz W, Müller PK, Bechstein WO, Mack MG, Söllner O, Felix R (1996) Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 201:59–67Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reimer P, Rummeny E, Shamsi K, Balzer T, Daldrup H, Tombach B, Hesse T, Berns T, Peters P (1996) Phase II Clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: dose, safety aspects and pulse sequence. Radiology 199:177–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weinmann HJ, Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Schmitt-Willich H, Vogler H, Frenzel T, Gries H (1991) A new lipophilic gadolinium chelate as a tissue-specific contrast medium for MRI. Magn Reson Med 22:233–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Schmitt-Willich H, Press WR, Negishi C, Weinmann HJ, Speck U (1992) Pre-clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the hepatobiliary system. Radiology 183:59–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Le Foie CC (1957) Etudes anatomiques et chirurgicales. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao JNK, Scott AJ (1992) A simple method for analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics 48:577–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Obuchowski NA (1998) On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data. Statist Med 17:1495–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karhunen PJ (1986) Benign hepatic tumours and tumour like conditions in men. J Clin Pathol 39:183–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller FH, Butler RS, Hoff FL, Fitzgerald SW, Nemcek AA Jr, Gore RM (1998) Using triphasic helical CT to detect focal hepatic lesions in patients with neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:643–649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valls C, Andia E, Sanchez A, Guma A, Figueras J, Torras J, Serrano T (2001) Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: preoperative detection and assessment of resectability with helical CT. Radiology 218:55–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kamel IR, Choti MA, Horton KM et al (2003) Surgically staged focal liver lesions: accuracy and reproducibility of dual-phase helical CT for detection and characterization. Radiology 227:752–757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kane RA, Hughes LA, Cua EJ, Steele GD, Jenkins RL, Cady B (1994) The impact of intraoperative ultrasonography on surgery for liver neoplasms. J Ultrasound Med 13:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boutkan H, Luth W, Meyer S, Cuesta M, van Heuzen E, Prevoo W (1992) The impact of intraoperative ultrasonography of the liver on the surgical strategy of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and hepatic metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 18:342–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmidt J, Strotzer M, Fraunhofer S, Boedeker H, Zirngibl H (2000) Intraoperative ultrasonography versus helical computed tomography and computed tomography with arterioportography in diagnosing colorectal liver metastases: lesion-by-lesion analysis. World J Surg 24:43–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weg N, Scheer MR, Gabor MP (1998) Liver lesions: improved detection with dual-detector-array CT and routine 2.5 mm thin collimation. Radiology 209:417–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haider MA, Amitai MM, Rappaport DC, O’Malley ME, Hanbidge AE (2002) Multi-detector row helical CT in preoperative assessment of small (< or = 1.5 cm) liver metastases: is thinner collimation better? Radiology 225:137–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kawata S, Murakami T, Kim T, Hori M, Federle MP (2002) Multidetector CT: diagnostic impact of slice thickness on detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:61–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bloed W, Van Leeuwen MS, Borel Rinkes IH (2000) Role of intraoperative ultrasound of the liver with improved preoperative hepatic imaging. Eur J Surg 166:691–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Semelka RC, Helmberger TK (2001) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the Liver. Radiology 218:27–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ito K, Mitchell DG, Matsunaga N (1999) MR imaging of the liver: techniques and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 32:2–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE, Hesse T, Balzer T, Tombach B, Peters PE (1997) Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 7:275–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stern W, Schick F, Kopp AF, Reimer P, Shamsi K, Clausen CD, Laniado M (2000) Dynamic MR imaging of liver metastases with Gd-EOB-DTPA. Acta Radiologica 41:255–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A, Zech CJ, Scheidler J, Breuer J, Helmberger TK, Reiser MF (2005) Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT-initial observations. Radiology 234:468–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saito K, Kotake F, Ito N, Ozuki T, Mikami R, Abe K, Shimazaki Y (2005) Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma: quantitative evaluation of tumor enhancement in hepatobiliary phase. Magn Reson Med Sci 4:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A et al (2004) Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology 230:266–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bellin MF, Webb JA, Van Der Molen AJ, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Members of Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) (2005) Safety of MR liver specific contrast media. Eur Radiol 15:1607–1614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim YK, Lee JM, Kim CS, Chung GH, Kim CY, Kim IH (2005) Detection of liver metastases: gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced three-dimensional dynamic phases and one-hour delayed phase MR imaging versus superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 15:220–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Winterer JT, Kotter E, Ghanem N, Langer M (2006) Detection and characterization of benign focal liver lesions with multislice CT. Eur Radiol 16:2427–2443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lencioni R (2006) Impact of European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) guidelines on the use of contrast agents in liver ultrasound. Eur Radiol 16:1610–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Simon G, Link TM, Wortler K, Doebereiner F, Schulte-Frohlinde E, Daldrup-Link H, Settles M, Rummeny EJ (2005) Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of Gd-DTPA- and ferumoxides-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 15:895–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bartolotta TV, Midiri M, Quaia E, Bertolotto M, Galia M, Cademartiri F, Lagalla R, Cardinale AE (2005) Benign focal liver lesions: spectrum of findings on SonoVue-enhanced pulse-inversion ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 15:1643–1649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate Hammerstingl
    • 1
  • Alexander Huppertz
    • 2
  • Josy Breuer
    • 3
  • Thomas Balzer
    • 3
  • Anthony Blakeborough
    • 4
  • Rick Carter
    • 5
  • Lluis Castells Fusté
    • 6
  • Gertraud Heinz-Peer
    • 7
  • Werner Judmaier
    • 8
  • Michael Laniado
    • 9
  • Riccardo M. Manfredi
    • 10
  • Didier G. Mathieu
    • 11
  • Dieter Müller
    • 13
  • Koenraad Mortelè
    • 12
  • Peter Reimer
    • 14
  • Maximilian F. Reiser
    • 15
  • Philip J. Robinson
    • 16
  • Kohkan Shamsi
    • 17
  • Michael Strotzer
    • 18
  • Matthias Taupitz
    • 19
  • Bernd Tombach
    • 20
  • Gianluca Valeri
    • 21
  • Bernhard E. van Beers
    • 22
  • Thomas J. Vogl
    • 23
  • For the European EOB-study group
  1. 1.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyJohann Wolfgang Goethe-UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Imaging Science Institute, Charitè - SiemensBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Gobal Clinical Development Diagnostics, Bayer Schering Pharma AGBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyRoyal Hallamshire HospitalSheffieldUK
  5. 5.Bayer Health Care Ltd.Burgess HillUK
  6. 6.Liver Unit, Department of Internal MedicineHospital Vall d`HebrònBarcelonaSpain
  7. 7.Allg. Krankenhaus der Stadt WienUniversitätsklinik für RadiodiagnostikWienGermany
  8. 8.Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and SpectroscopyUniversity Hospital InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  9. 9.Institute for Diagnostic RadiologyUniversitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  10. 10.Department of RadiologyPoliclinico, University of VeronaVeronaItaly
  11. 11.Centre d’ImagerieAix en ProvenceFrance
  12. 12.Department of Radiology (L1)Brigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  13. 13.Department of RadiologyGeorg-August UniversitätGöttingenGermany
  14. 14.Department of RadiologyKlinikum KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  15. 15.Institute of Clinical RadiologyLudwig-Maximilians-University Munich - Klinikum GrosshadernMunichGermany
  16. 16.Department of Clinical RadiologySt James’s University HospitalLeedsUK
  17. 17.Corporate Clinical OperationsBerlex Laboratories Inc.MontvilleUSA
  18. 18.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyUniversity HospitalRegensburgGermany
  19. 19.Department of RadiologyUniversitätsklinikum Charitè, Med. Fakultät der Humboldt-UniversitätBerlinGermany
  20. 20.Institute of Clinical RadiologyWestfälische Wilhelms Universität MünsterMünsterGermany
  21. 21.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Ancona, Regional Hospital Torette, Via Conca, ToretteAnconaItaly
  22. 22.Department of RadiologyUniversité Catholique de Louvain, St-Luc University HospitalBrusselsBelgium
  23. 23.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyJohann Wolfgang Goethe-UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations