European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 959–966 | Cite as

Usefulness of T1 mapping on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging in assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

  • Ying Ding
  • Sheng-Xiang Rao
  • Tao Meng
  • Caizhong Chen
  • Renchen Li
  • Meng-Su Zeng



This study evaluates the value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for diagnosis and staging of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in an animal model by T1 relaxation time measurement.


Thirty-four rabbits were divided into the control group (n = 10) and NAFLD group, which was split into four groups (n = 6) with a high-fat diet for an interval of 3 weeks. A dual flip angle was performed before and at the hepatobiliary phase (HBP). T1 relaxation times of the liver parenchyma and the decrease rate (∆%) were calculated. Histological findings according to semi-quantitative scoring of steatosis, activity and fibrosis were the standard of reference.


HBP and ∆% T1 relaxation time measurement showed significant differences between normal and NAFLD groups, between non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and NAFLD without NASH (p = 0.000–0.049), between fibrosis groups (p = 0.000–0.019), but no difference between F1 and F2 (p = 0.834). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of T1 relaxation time for HBP and ∆% were 0.86–0.93 for the selection of NASH and activity score ≥2, and 0.86–0.95 for the selection of F ≥ 1, 2, 3. No significant difference was found for diagnostic performance between HBP and ∆% T1 relaxation time.


HBP T1 relaxation time measurement of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI was useful to evaluate NAFLD according to the SAF score. HBP T1 relaxation time measurement was as accurate as ∆% T1 relaxation time.

Key Points

• Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI could give useful information on NAFLD.

HBP T1relaxation time measurement was useful for the evaluation of NAFLD.

• HBP T1relaxation time measurement was as accurate as ∆%.


Magnetic resonance imaging T1 mapping Gd-EOB-DTPA NAFLD NASH 



area under the ROC curve


reduction rate




hepatobiliary phase


gadoxetic acid


least significant difference


magnetic resonance imaging


multidrug resistance protein


non-alcoholic fatty liver disease


non-alcoholic steatohepatitis


organic anion transporting polypeptide


region of interest


receiver operating characteristic


steatosis (S), activity (A) and fibrosis (F)


standard deviation


volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Mengsu Zeng. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study received funding from the National Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China (Grant No. 81001025). One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Approval from the institutional animal care committee was obtained. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported.

Methodology: experimental study performed at one institution.


  1. 1.
    Brunt EM (2010) Pathology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:195–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M et al (2005) Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 41:1313–1321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bedossa P, Poitou C, Veyrie N et al (2012) Histopathological algorithm and scoring system for evaluation of liver lesions in morbidly obese patients. Hepatology 56:1751–1759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Speliotes EK, Butler JL, Palmer CD, Voight BF, Hirschhorn JN (2010) PNPLA3 variants specifically confer increased risk for histologic nonalcoholic fatty liver disease but not metabolic disease. Hepatology 52:904–912PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanyal A, Poklepovic A, Moyneur E, Barghout V (2010) Population-based risk factors and resource utilization for HCC: US perspective. Curr Med Res Opin 26:2183–2191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ekstedt M, Franzen LE, Mathiesen UL et al (2006) Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology 44:865–873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miele L, Forgione A, Gasbarrini G, Grieco A (2007) Noninvasive assessment of fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Transl Res 149:114–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowman JK, Tomlinson JW, Newsome PN (2011) Systematic review: the diagnosis and staging of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 33:525–540PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sofue K, Tsurusaki M, Tokue H et al (2011) Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3.0-T MR imaging: quantitative and qualitative comparison of hepatocyte-phase images obtained 10 min and 20 min after injection for the detection of liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Eur Radiol 21(11):2336–2343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun HY, Lee JM, Shin CI et al (2010) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating small hepatocellular carcinomas (<2 cm in diameter) from arterial enhancing pseudolesions: special emphasis on hepatobiliary phase imaging. Invest Radiol 45:96–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ichikawa T, Saito K, Yoshioka N et al (2010) Detection and characterization of focal liver lesions: a Japanese phase III, multicenter comparison between gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography predominantly in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease. Invest Radiol 45:133–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zech CJ, Herrmann KA, Reiser MF et al (2007) MR imaging in patients with suspected liver metastases: value of liver-specific contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. Magn Reson Med Sci 6:43–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pascolo L, Cupelli F, Anelli PL et al (1999) Molecular mechanisms for the hepatic uptake of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 257:746–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsuda N, Okada M, Murakami T (2007) Potential of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) for differential diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and fatty liver in rats using magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 42:242–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu Z, Matsui O, Kitao A et al (2013) Usefulness of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging in the evaluation of simple steatosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1137–1143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sonoda A, Nitta N, Ohta S et al (2011) The possibility of differentiation between nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and fatty liver in rabbits on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced open-type MRI scans. Acad Radiol 18:525–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsuda N, Okada M, Murakami T (2010) New proposal for the staging of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: evaluation of liver fibrosis on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 73(1):137–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsuda N, Matsui O (2011) Signal profile on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and liver cirrhosis induced in rats: correlation with transporter expression. Eur Radiol 21(12):2542–2550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katsube T, Okada M, Kumano S et al (2011) Estimation of liver function using T1 mapping on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 46:277–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katsube T, Okada M, Kumano S et al (2012) Estimation of liver function using T2* mapping on gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 81:1460–1464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Materne R, Smith AM, Peeters F et al (2002) Assessment of hepatic perfusion parameters with dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 47:135–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Oguri M et al (2011) Staging liver fibrosis by using liver-enhancement ratio of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: comparison with aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index. Magn Reson Imaging 29(8):1047–1052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Goshima S et al (2011) Staging hepatic fibrosis: comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging–preliminary observations. Radiology 259(1):142–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yamada A, Hara T, Li F et al (2011) Quantitative evaluation of liver function with use of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 260(3):727–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dahlqvist Leinhard O, Dahlström N, Kihlberg J et al (2012) Quantifying differences in hepatic uptake of the liver specific contrast agents Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 22(3):642–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horsthuis K, Nederveen AJ, de Feiter MW et al (2009) Mapping of T1-values and Gadolinium-concentrations in MRI as indicator of disease activity in luminal Crohn’s disease: a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 29(2):488–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deoni SC, Rutt BK, Peters TM (2003) Rapid combined T1 and T2 mapping using gradient recalled acquisition in the steady state. Magn Reson Med 49(3):515–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yoshimura N, Saito K, Saguchi T et al (2013) Distinguishing hepatic hemangiomas from metastatic tumors using T1 mapping on gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 31(1):23–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fisher CD, Lickteig AJ, Augustine LM et al (2009) Experimental non-alcoholic fatty liver disease results in decreased hepatic uptake transporter expression and function in rats. Eur J Pharmacol 613(1–3):119–127PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schwenzer NF, Springer F, Schraml C et al (2009) Non-invasive assessment and quantification of liver steatosis by ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance. J Hepatol 51(3):433–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ying Ding
    • 1
  • Sheng-Xiang Rao
    • 1
  • Tao Meng
    • 1
  • Caizhong Chen
    • 1
  • Renchen Li
    • 1
  • Meng-Su Zeng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyZhongshan/Hospital of Fudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations