Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 2553–2559 | Cite as

Gadolinium-enhanced imaging of pediatric thoracic lymphoma: is intravenous contrast really necessary?

  • Christophe T. ArendtEmail author
  • Martin Beeres
  • Doris Leithner
  • Patricia Tischendorf
  • Marcel Langenbach
  • Benjamin Kaltenbach
  • Jasmin Dalgicdir
  • Thomas J. Vogl
  • Tatjana Gruber-Rouh
Contrast Media

Abstract

Objectives

Increasing awareness of potential side effects from gadolinium-based contrast agents has underlined the need for contrast-free magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Numerous recent articles evaluated the risk of potential brain deposits, with the result that research is putting the focus more on alternative unenhanced imaging techniques. The aim of this study was to determine the need for contrast media for chest MRI in primary staging and follow-up care of lymphoma.

Methods

This monocentric, retrospective study encompassed patients under 25 years of age who had undergone histopathological examination of thoracic lymph nodes and at least one chest MRI examination with unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences. Seven different thoracic lymph node stations including mediastinal, hilar, periclavicular, and axillary regions were evaluated by two readers regarding lesion diameter, number, shape, necrosis, and infiltration of surrounding structures. Findings were categorized into suspicious (> 1 cm; round; necrosis; infiltration) or non-suspicious.

Results

Fifty-one patients (mean age, 16.0 ± 3.7 yrs) with thoracic Hodgkin (70.6%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (25.5%) and lymphadenopathy (3.9%) were retrospectively included. Most lymph nodes categorized as suspicious were located in the mediastinal station (86.4%). High agreement (κ = 0.81) between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences was found for both suspicious and non-suspicious lymph nodes. Significant (p < 0.001), but small difference (1 mm) was observed only in sizing mediastinal lymph nodes (all other p > 0.05). No significant difference (smallest p = 0.08) was shown for the use of five different types of contrast media.

Conclusion

MRI in young patients with thoracic lymphoma can safely be done without the use of contrast agent.

Key Point

• Thoracic magnetic resonance imaging in young lymphoma patients can safely be done without gadolinium-based contrast agents.

Keywords

Lymphoma Magnetic resonance imaging Contrast media Pediatrics 

Abbreviations

ADC

Apparent diffusion coefficient

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

FDG-PET/CT

Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography

GBCA

Gadolinium-based contrast agent

HL

Hodgkin lymphoma

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

NHL

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Notes

Funding information

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. Thomas J. Vogl, Head of the Department of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt.

Conflict of interest

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.

Statistics and biometry

Prof. Dr. Eva Herrmann, Head of the Institute of Biostatistics and Mathematic Modeling, University Hospital Frankfurt, kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• not applicable

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Buhtoiarov IN (2017) Pediatric lymphoma. Pediatr Rev 38:410–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF et al (2014) Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 32:3059–3068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson SA, Kumar A, Matasar MJ, Schöder H, Rademaker J (2015) Imaging for staging and response assessment in lymphoma. Radiology 276:323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang B, Law MW, Khong PL (2009) Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology 251:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kutanzi KR, Lumen A, Koturbash I, Miousse IR (2016) Pediatric exposures to ionizing radiation: carcinogenic considerations. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(11):1057.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111057
  6. 6.
    Punwani S, Taylor SA, Bainbridge A et al (2010) Pediatric and adolescent lymphoma: comparison of whole-body STIR half-Fourier RARE MR imaging with an enhanced PET/CT reference for initial staging. Radiology 255:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwee TC, van Ufford HM, Beek FJ et al (2009) Whole-body MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging, for the initial staging of malignant lymphoma: comparison to computed tomography. Invest Radiol 44:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Littooij AS, Kwee TC, Barber I et al (2014) Whole-body MRI for initial staging of paediatric lymphoma: prospective comparison to an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. Eur Radiol 24:1153–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American College of Radiology (2017) ACR manual on contrast media version 10.3. Available via https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual. Accessed 03 Jan 2018
  10. 10.
    Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270:834–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flood TF, Stence NV, Maloney JA, Mirsky DM (2017) Pediatric brain: repeated exposure to linear gadolinium-based contrast material is associated with increased signal intensity at unenhanced T1-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 282:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu HH, Pokorney A, Towbin RB, Miller JH (2016) Increased signal intensities in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images: evidence in children undergoing multiple gadolinium MRI exams. Pediatr Radiol 46:1590–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ et al (2015) Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 275:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radbruch A, Haase R, Kickingereder P et al (2017) Pediatric brain: no increased signal intensity in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images after consecutive exposure to a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent. Radiology 283:828–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bae S, Lee HJ, Han K et al (2017) Gadolinium deposition in the brain: association with various GBCAs using a generalized additive model. Eur Radiol 27:3353–3361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanda T, Osawa M, Oba H et al (2015) High signal intensity in dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: association with linear versus macrocyclic gadolinium chelate administration. Radiology 275:803–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mithal LB, Patel PS, Mithal D, Palac HL, Rozenfeld MN (2017) Use of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents and awareness of brain gadolinium deposition among pediatric providers in North America. Pediatr Radiol 47:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar A, Burger IA, Zhang Z et al (2016) Definition of bulky disease in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma in computed tomography era: prognostic significance of measurements in the coronal and transverse planes. Haematologica 101:1237–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayerhoefer ME, Karanikas G, Kletter K et al (2015) Evaluation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for follow-up and treatment response assessment of lymphoma: results of an 18F-FDG-PET/CT-controlled prospective study in 64 patients. Clin Cancer Res 21:2506–2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giraudo C, Raderer M, Karanikas G et al (2016) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance in lymphoma: comparison with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and with the addition of magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging. Invest Radiol 51:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carter BW, Wu CC, Khorashadi L et al (2014) Multimodality imaging of cardiothoracic lymphoma. Eur J Radiol 83:1470–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arlachov Y, Ganatra RH (2012) Sedation/anaesthesia in paediatric radiology. Br J Radiol 85:e1018–e1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alexander AL, Hasan KM, Lazar M, Tsuruda JS, Parker DL (2001) Analysis of partial volume effects in diffusion-tensor MRI. Magn Reson Med 45:770–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Razek AA (2012) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging of chest tumors. Cancer Imaging 12:452–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henzler T, Schmid-Bindert G, Schoenberg SO, Fink C (2010) Diffusion and perfusion MRI of the lung and mediastinum. Eur J Radiol 76:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe T. Arendt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Beeres
    • 1
  • Doris Leithner
    • 1
  • Patricia Tischendorf
    • 1
  • Marcel Langenbach
    • 1
  • Benjamin Kaltenbach
    • 1
  • Jasmin Dalgicdir
    • 1
  • Thomas J. Vogl
    • 1
  • Tatjana Gruber-Rouh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital FrankfurtFrankfurt/MainGermany

Personalised recommendations