Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of hepatobiliary uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA on the hepatic venous phase of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging on a 3.0-T apparatus: comparison between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to reveal the difference in contrast enhancement of the abdominal organs and major vessels on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCM-MRI) using gadoxetic sodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) and gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) in the same patients.

Materials and methods

DCM-MRI using Gd-EOBDTPA and Gd-DTPA were performed in the same 17 patients. Precontrast and DCM-MRI images [arterial phase (AP), portal venous phase (PP), hepatic venous phase (HP)] were acquired before and after bolus injection of each contrast agent. The organ-to-muscle ratio [liver (L/M), spleen (S/M), aorta (A/M), portal vein (P/M), hepatic vein (V/M)] were calculated at each phase and analyzed statistically.

Results

There was no significant difference between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA images regarding the L/M or V/M mean on precontrast images or the mean of L/M at AP and L/M at the PP. At the AP, PP, and HP, the means of S/M, A/M, P/M, and V/M with Gd-EOBDTPA were lower than those with Gd-DTPA. On HP, The mean L/M with Gd-EOB-DTPA was higher than that with Gd-DTPA.

Conclusion

On 3-T DCM-MRI using Gd-EOB-DTPA, contrast enhancement of the organs, except for the liver, was lower than that on DCM-MRI using Gd-DTPA. The HP was already affected by hepatobiliary uptake in Gd-EOB-DTPA.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Shamsi K, Balzer T, Daldrup HE, Tombach B, et al. Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOBDTPA: dose, safety aspects, and pulse sequence. Radiology 1996;199:177–183.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R, Schellenbeck M, Schumacher G, Balzer T, et al. Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1996;200:59–67.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Schmitt-Willich H, Press WR, Negishi C, Weinmann HJ, Speck U. Preclinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the hepatobiliary system. Radiology 1992;183:59–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A, Zech CJ, Scheidler J, Breuer J, et al. Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acidenhanced MR imaging: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT—initial observations. Radiology 2005;234: 468–478.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Halavaara J, Breuer J, Ayuso C, Balzer T, Bellin MF, Blomqvist L, et al. Liver tumor characterization: comparison between liver-specific gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI and biphasic CT—a multicenter trial. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:345–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J, Balzer T, Blakeborough A, Carter R, et al. 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 2008;18:457–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, Nittka M, Jellus V, Wang J, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1202–1210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tamada T, Ito K, Sone T, Yamamoto A, Yoshida K, Kakuba K, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal solid organ and major vessel: comparison of enhancement effect between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:636–640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuhn JP, Hegenscheid K, Siegmund W, Froehlich CP, Hosten N, Puls R. Normal dynamic MRI enhancement patterns of the upper abdominal organs: gadoxetic acid compared with gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1318–1323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715–724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A, Breuer J, Giovagnoni A, Heinz-Peer G, et al. Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology 2004;230:266–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bluemke DA, Sahani D, Amendola M, Balzer T, Breuer J, Brown JJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of MR imaging with liverspecific contrast agent: U.S. multicenter phase III study. Radiology 2005;237:89–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Petersein J, Spinazzi A, Giovagnoni A, Soyer P, Terrier F, Lencioni R, et al. Focal liver lesions: evaluation of the efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine in MR imaging—a multicenter phase III clinical study. Radiology 2000;215:727–736.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Oudkerk M, Torres CG, Song B, Konig M, Grimm J, Fernandez-Cuadrado J, et al. Characterization of liver lesions with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR imaging: multicenter study comparing MR and dual-phase spiral CT. Radiology 2002;223:517–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. BB, Loddenkemper C, Huppertz A, Valdeig S, Stroux A, Seja M, et al. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhotic liver enhancement using Gd-EOB-DTPA. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1053–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ueda K, Matsui O, Kawamori Y, Nakanuma Y, Kadoya M, Yoshikawa J, et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation of hemodynamics with dynamic CT during hepatic arteriography. Radiology 1998;206:161–166.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ishigami K, Yoshimitsu K, Nishihara Y, Irie H, Asayama Y, Tajima T, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma with a pseudocapsule on gadolinium-enhanced MR images: correlation with histopathologic findings. Radiology 2009;250:435–443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sodickson DK, Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Edelman RR, Manning WJ. Signal-to-noise ratio and signal-to-noise efficiency in SMASH imaging. Magn Reson Med 1999;41: 1009–1022.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Imai H, Miyati T, Ogura A, Doi T, Tsuchihashi T, Machida Y, et al. Signal-to-noise ratio measurement in parallel MRI with subtraction mapping and consecutive methods. Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 2008;64:930–936 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Steckner MC. A simple method for estimating the noise level in a signal region of an MR image. Med Phys 2010;37: 5072–5079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-1-1 Asahi, Matsumoto, 390-8621, Japan

    Yasunari Fujinaga, Ayumi Ohya, Tsuyoshi Matsushita, Masahiro Kurozumi, Kazuhiko Ueda & Masumi Kadoya

  2. Radiology Division, Shinshu University Hospital, Matsumoto, Japan

    Yoshihiro Kitou & Hitoshi Ueda

Authors
  1. Yasunari Fujinaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayumi Ohya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsuyoshi Matsushita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masahiro Kurozumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kazuhiko Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yoshihiro Kitou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hitoshi Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masumi Kadoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasunari Fujinaga.

About this article

Cite this article

Fujinaga, Y., Ohya, A., Matsushita, T. et al. Effect of hepatobiliary uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA on the hepatic venous phase of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging on a 3.0-T apparatus: comparison between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Jpn J Radiol 29, 695–700 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-011-0615-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-011-0615-5

Key words

Search

Navigation