Advertisement

Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 483–488 | Cite as

Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on proton density fat fraction using the six-echo Dixon method in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging

  • Tatsuya Hayashi
  • Kei Fukuzawa
  • Hiroshi Kondo
  • Hiroshi Onodera
  • Shuji Toyotaka
  • Rie Tojo
  • Shimpei Yano
  • Masakatsu Tano
  • Tosiaki Miyati
  • Jun’ichi Kotoku
  • Takahide Okamoto
  • Keiko Toyoda
  • Hiroshi Oba
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether disodium gadoxetate (Gd-EOB-DTPA) affects proton density fat fractions (PDFFs) during use of the multiecho Dixon (meDixon) method in phantom and simulation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at 3 T. Fat–water phantoms comprising vegetable fat–water emulsions with varying fat volume percentages (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50) and Gd-EOB-DTPA concentrations (0 and 0.4 mM) were prepared. Phantoms without Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as precontrast, and those with Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as postcontrast. All phantoms were scanned with a 3 T MRI system using the meDixon method, and precontrast and postcontrast PDFFs were calculated. Simulated pre and postcontrast PDFFs in the liver were calculated using a theoretical formula. The relationship between PDFFs measured in the pre and postcontrast phantoms was evaluated using linear regression and Bland–Altman analysis. The regression analysis comparing the pre and postcontrast PDFFs yielded a slope of 0.77 (P < 0.001). The PDFFs on the postcontrast phantom were smaller than those on the precontrast phantom. The mean difference between the PDFFs on the pre and postcontrast phantoms was 6.12% (95% confidence interval 3.13 to 9.10%; limits of agreement −0.88 to 13.11%). The simulated PDFF on the postcontrast phantom was smaller than that on the precontrast phantom. We demonstrated that the PDFF measured using the meDixon was smaller on postcontrast than on precontrast at 3 T, if a low flip angle was used. This tendency was also seen in the simulation study results.

Keywords

Fat Liver Phantom Magnetic resonance imaging Quantification Gd-EOB-DTPA 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing services. This manuscript was partly supported by Akiyoshi Ohtsuka Fellowship of the Japanese Society of Radiological Technology for improvement in English expression of a draft version of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent for this study was not required, because no research involving human participants was undertaken by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Angulo P. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1221–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams LA, Lymp JF, St Sauver J, et al. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:113–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ratziu V, Bonyhay L, Di Martino V, et al. Survival, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma in obesity-related cryptogenic cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2002;35:1485–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kawamura Y, Arase Y, Ikeda K, et al. Large-scale long-term follow-up study of Japanese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for the onset of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:253–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Piccinino F, Sagenelli E, Pasquale G, Giusti G. Complications following percutaneous liver biopsy. A multicenter retrospective study on 68,276 biopsies. J Hepatol. 1986;2:165–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2614–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayashi T, Saitoh S, Fukuzawa K, et al. Non-invasive assessment of advanced fibrosis using hepatic volume in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatol Res. 2017;47:455–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, et al. Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:1898–906.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yokoo T, Shiehmorteza M, Hamilton G, et al. Estimation of hepatic proton-density fat fraction by using MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology. 2011;258:749–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dixon W. Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1984;153:189–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hines CD, Yu H, Shimakawa A, McKenzie CA, Brittain JH, Reeder SB. T1 independent, T 2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: validation in a fat-water-SPIO phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:1215–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kukuk GM, Hittatiya K, Sprinkart AM, et al. Comparison between modified Dixon MRI techniques, MR spectroscopic relaxometry, and different histologic quantification methods in the assessment of hepatic steatosis. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:2869–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yokoo T, Collins JM, Hanna RF, Bydder M, Middleton MS, Sirlin CB. Effects of intravenous gadolinium administration and flip angle on the assessment of liver fat signal fraction with opposed-phase and in-phase imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:246–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hernando D, Wells SA, Vigen KK, Reeder SB. Effect of hepatocyte-specific gadolinium-based contrast agents on hepatic fat-fraction and R2(*). Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;33:43–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology. 2004;230:652–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukuzawa K, Hayashi T, Takahashi J, et al. Evaluation of six-point modified dixon and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for fat quantification: a fat-water-iron phantom study. Radiol Phys Technol. 2017;10:349–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Onoda M, Hyodo T, Murakami T, et al. Optimizing signal intensity correction during evaluation of hepatic parenchymal enhancement on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI: comparison of three methods. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:339–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhong X, Nickel MD, Kannengiesser SA, Dale BM, Kiefer B, Bashir MR. Liver fat quantification using a multi-step adaptive fitting approach with multi-echo GRE imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2014;72:1353–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu CY, McKenzie CA, Yu H, Brittain JH, Reeder SB. Fat quantification with IDEAL gradient echo imaging: correction of bias from T(1) and noise. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58:354–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamilton G, Middleton MS, Cunha GM, Sirlin CB. Effect of gadolinium-based contrast agent on the relaxation properties of water and fat in human liver as measured in vivo by 1H MRS. In: Book of abstracts: 21th Annual meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; 2013. p. 1516.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitchell DG, Stolpen AH, Siegelman ES, Bolinger L, Outwater EK. Fatty tissue on opposed-phase MR images: paradoxical suppression of signal intensity by paramagnetic contrast agents. Radiology. 1996;198:351–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatsuya Hayashi
    • 1
  • Kei Fukuzawa
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Kondo
    • 3
  • Hiroshi Onodera
    • 4
  • Shuji Toyotaka
    • 4
  • Rie Tojo
    • 4
  • Shimpei Yano
    • 4
  • Masakatsu Tano
    • 2
  • Tosiaki Miyati
    • 5
  • Jun’ichi Kotoku
    • 1
  • Takahide Okamoto
    • 1
  • Keiko Toyoda
    • 3
  • Hiroshi Oba
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of Medical TechnologyTeikyo UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Radiological TechnologyToranomon HospitalTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyTeikyo University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Central of RadiologyTeikyo University HospitalTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health SciencesKanazawa UniversityIshikawaJapan

Personalised recommendations