Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare quantitatively and qualitatively hepatocyte-phase images obtained 10 and 20 min (Images-10, and Images-20) after injection of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) to detect liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma on 3.0 T MR imaging.

Methods

A total of 48 patients (26 men, 22 women; mean age, 64 years) with 88 histopathologically confirmed liver metastases underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Tumour-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal intensity gain (SIG) of liver parenchyma and overall image quality were analysed. Two radiologists independently reviewed two sets of MR images: set 1, unenhanced (T1- and T2-weighted), dynamic images and Images-10; set 2, unenhanced, dynamic and Images-20. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) to detect liver metastases, and diagnostic performance using the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics (AFROC) method were calculated.

Results

The mean tumour-to-liver CNR, SIG of liver parenchyma and overall image quality on Images-20 were significantly higher than those on Images-10. The overall image quality of “fair to excellent” was achieved on both images in 93.8% of the patients. Sensitivity, PPV and area under the AFROC curve on set 1 were similar to set 2, including lesions <1 cm.

Conclusion

In detecting liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma, Images-10 could replace Images-20 in 3.0 T MR imaging.

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

Access this article

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

References

  1. Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A et al (1995) Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 195:785–792

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R et al (1996) Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 200:59–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Ket S et al (1996) Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: dose, safety aspects, and pulse sequence. Radiology 199:177–183

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A et al (2005) Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT–initial observations. Radiology 234:468–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bluemke DA, Sahani D, Amendola M et al (2005) Efficacy and safety of MR imaging with liver-specific contrast agent: U.S. multicenter phase III study. Radiology 237:89–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE et al (1997) Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 7:275–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stern W, Schick F, Kopp AF et al (2000) Dynamic MR imaging of liver metastases with Gd-EOB-DTPA. Acta Radiol 41:255–262

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ward J (2006) New MR techniques for the detection of liver metastases. Cancer Imaging 6:33–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zech CJ, Herrmann KA, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) MR imaging in patients with suspected liver metastases: value of liver-specific contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. Magn Reson Med Sci 6:43–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J et al (2008) 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. Eur Radiol 18:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zech CJ, Grazioli L, Breuer J, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2008) Diagnostic performance and description of morphological features of focal nodular hyperplasia in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: results of a multicenter trial. Invest Radiol 43:504–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Tominaga L et al (2009) Delay before the hepatocyte phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging: is it possible to shorten the examination time? Eur Radiol 19:2623–2629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hussain SM, Wielopolski PA, Martin DR (2005) Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T: problem or a promise for the future? Top Magn Reson Imaging 16:325–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Merkle EM, Dale BM (2006) Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1524–1532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Akisik FM, Sandrasegaran K, Aisen AM, Lin C, Lall C (2007) Abdominal MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiographics 27:1433–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi JY, Kim MJ, Chung YE et al (2008) Abdominal applications of 3.0-T MR imaging: comparative review versus a 1.5-T system. Radiographics 28:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tsurusaki M, Semelka RC, Zapparoli M et al (2008) Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MR imaging of the liver in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver disease. Eur J Radiol 72:314–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramalho M, Herédia V, Tsurusaki M, Altun E, Semelka RC (2009) Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla MRI in patients with chronic liver diseases. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:869–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yamashita Y, Ogata I, Urata J et al (1997) Cavenous hemangioma of the liver; pathologic correlation with dynamic CT findings. Radiology 203:121–125

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Watanabe H et al (2010) Hepatic hemangioma and metastasis; differentiation with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI with 3 T system. AJR Am J Roentogenol 195:941–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Semelka RC, Hussain SM, Marcos HB, Woosley JT (2000) Perilesional enhancement of hepatic metastases: correlation between MR imaging and histopathologic findings - initial observations. Radiology 215:89–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Nawano S et al (2006) Hepatic metastases: diffusion-weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 239:122–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 Radiol 20:2690–2698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keitaro Sofue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sofue, K., Tsurusaki, M., Tokue, H. et al. 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, 2336–2343 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2197-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2197-0

Keywords

Navigation