Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance-guided upper abdominal biopsies in a high-field wide-bore 3-T MRI system: feasibility, handling, and needle artefacts

  • Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the feasibility and handling of abdominal MRI-guided biopsies in a 3-T MRI system.

Methods:

Over a 1-year period, 50 biopsies were obtained in 47 patients with tumours of the upper abdominal organs guided by 3-T MRI with a large-bore diameter of 70 cm. Lesions in liver (47), spleen (1) and kidney (2) were biopsied with a coaxial technique using a 16-G biopsy needle guided by a T1-weighted three-dimensional gradient recalled echo volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (T1w-3D-GRE-VIBE) sequence. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, complication rate, interventional complexity, room/intervention time and needle artefacts were determined.

Results:

A sensitivity of 0.93, specificity of 1.0 and accuracy of 0.94 were observed. Three patients required a rebiopsy. There was a minor complications rate of 13.6%, and no major complications were observed. Histopathology revealed 38 malignant lesions, and 3-month follow-up confirmed 9 benign lesions. Mean lesion diameter was 3.4 ± 3.1 cm (50% being smaller than 2 cm). Mean needle tract length was 10.8 ± 3.3 cm. Median room time was 42.0 ± 19.8 min and intervention time 9.3 ± 8.1 min. Needle artefact size was about 9-fold greater for perpendicular access versus access parallel to the main magnetic field.

Conclusion:

Biopsies of the upper abdomen can be performed with great technical success and easy handling because of the large-bore diameter. The MRI-guided biopsy needle had an acceptable susceptibility artefact at 3 T. However future research must aim to reduce the susceptibility effects of the biopsy systems.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chojniak R, Isberner RK, Viana LM, Yu LS, Aita AA, Soares FA (2006) Computed tomography guided needle biopsy: experience from 1, 300 procedures. Sao Paulo Med J 124:10–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Welch TJ, Sheedy PF, Johnson CD, Johnson CM, Stephens DH (1989) CT-guided biopsy: prospective analysis of 1, 000 procedures. Radiology 171:493–496

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Adam G, Bücker A, Nolte-Ernsting C, Tacke J, Günther RW (1999) Interventional MR imaging: percutaneous abdominal and skeletal biopsies and drainages of the abdomen. Eur Radiol 9:1471–1478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zangos S, Kiefl D, Eichler K, Engelmann K, Heller M, Herzog C, Mack MG, Jacobi V, Vogl TJ (2003) MR-guided biopsies of undetermined liver lesions: technique and results. Rofo 175:688–694

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J, Balzer T, Blakeborough A, Carter R, Fusté LC, Heinz-Peer G, Judmaier W, Laniado M, Manfredi RM, Mathieu DG, Müller D, Mortelè K, Reimer P, Reiser MF, Robinson PJ, Shamsi K, Strotzer M, Taupitz M, Tombach B, Valeri G, van Beers BE, Vogl TJ (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 

  6. Langen HJ, Kugel H, Grewe S, Gindele A, Landwehr P, Fischbach R (2000) MR-guided biopsy using respiratory-triggered high-resolution T2-weighted sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:834–836

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmidt AJ, Kee ST, Sze DY, Daniel BL, Razavi MK, Semba CP, Dake MD (1999) Diagnostic yield of MR-guided liver biopsies compared with CT- and US-guided liver biopsies. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:1323–1329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silverman SG, Collick BD, Figueira MR, Khorasani R, Adams DF, Newman RW, Topulos GP, Jolesz FA (1995) Interactive MR-guided biopsy in an open-configuration MR imaging system. Radiology 197:175–181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. König CW, Trübenbach J, Fritz J, Lauer UM, Claussen CD, Pereira PL (2004) Contrast enhanced MR-guided biopsy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 29:71–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mueller PR, Stark DD, Simeone JF, Saini S, Butch RJ, Edelman RR, Wittenberg J, Ferrucci JT (1986) MR-guided aspiration biopsy: needle design and clinical trials. Radiology 161:605–609

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mahfouz AE, Rahmouni A, Zylbersztejn C, Mathieu D (1996) MR-guided biopsy using ultrafast T1- and T2-weighted reordered turbo fast low-angle shot sequences: feasibility and preliminary clinical applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:167–169

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mueller PR, Silverman SG, Tung G, Brink JA, Cardenosa G, Saini S, Forman BH, Hahn PF (1989) New universal precaution aspiration tray. Radiology 173:278–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Akimoto S, Mori H, Fujii T, Furuya K (2009) Optimal scan timing for Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced liver dynamic MR imaging. Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 65:626–630

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cardella JF, Bakal CW, Bertino RE, Burke DR, Drooz A, Haskal Z, Lewis CA, Malloy PC, Meranze SG, Oglevie SB, Sacks D, Towbin RB (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for image-guided percutaneous biopsy in adults (Appendix A). J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:227–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. No authors listed. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic (2000) Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 894:1–253

  16. Yao L, Nelson SD, Seeger LL, Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR (1999) Primary musculoskeletal neoplasms: effectiveness of core-needle biopsy. Radiology 212:682–686

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yu SC, Liew CT, Lau WY, Leung TW, Metreweli C (2001) US-guided percutaneous biopsy of small hepatic lesions. Radiology 218:195–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Middleton WD, Hiskes SK, Teefey SA, Boucher LD (1997) Small (1.5 cm or less) liver metastases: US-guided biopsy. Radiology 205:729–732

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eberhardt SC, Choi PH, Bach AM, Funt SA, Felderman HE, Hann LE (2003) Utility of sonography for small hepatic lesions found on computed tomography in patients with cancer. J Ultrasound Med 22:335–343

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stattaus J, Kuehl H, Ladd S, Schroeder T, Antoch G, Baba HA, Barkhausen J, Forsting M (2007) CT-guided biopsy of small liver lesions: visibility, artifacts, and corresponding diagnostic accuracy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30:928–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Haage P, Piroth W, Staatz G, Adam G, Günther RW (1999) CT-guided percutaneous biopsies for the classification of focal liver lesions: a comparison between 14 G and 18 G puncture biopsy needles. Rofo 171:44–48

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Choi BI, Han JK, Cho JM, Choi DS, Han MC, Lee HS, Kim CY (1995) Characterization of focal hepatic tumors. Value of two-phase scanning with spiral computed tomography. Cancer 76:2434–2442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Honda H, Onitsuka H, Kanazawa Y, Matsumata T, Hayashi T, Kaneko K, Fukuya T, Tateshi Y, Adachi E, Masuda K (1995) MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Correlation of metal content and signal intensity. Acta Radiol 36:163–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zangos S, Müller C, Mayer F, Naguib NN, Nour-Eldin NE, Hansmann ML, Herzog C, Hammerstingl RM, Thalhammer A, Mack M, Vogl TJ, Eichler K (2010) Retrospective 5-year analysis of MR-guided biopsies in a low-field MR system. Rofo 181:658–663

    Google Scholar 

  25. Langen HJ, Kugel H, Landwehr P (2002) MR-guided core biopsies using a closed 1.0 T imager. First clinical results. Eur J Radiol 41:19–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Salomonowitz E (2001) MR imaging-guided biopsy and therapeutic intervention in a closed-configuration magnet: single-center series of 361 punctures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:159–163

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stattaus J, Maderwald S, Baba HA, Gerken G, Barkhausen J, Forsting M, Ladd ME (2008) MR-guided liver biopsy within a short, wide-bore 1.5 Tesla MR system. Eur Radiol 18:2865–2873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ladd ME, Erhart P, Debatin JF, Romanowski BJ, Boesiger P, McKinnon GC (1996) Biopsy needle susceptibility artifacts. Magn Reson Med 36:646–651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Butts K, Pauly JM, Daniel BL, Kee S, Norbash AM (1999) Management of biopsy needle artifacts: techniques for RF-refocused MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:586–595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weiss CR, Nour SG, Lewin JS (2008) MR-guided biopsy: a review of current techniques and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:311–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Müller-Bierl BM, Martirosian P, Graf H, Boss A, König C, Pereira PL, Schick F (2008) Biopsy needle tips with markers-MR compatible needles for high-precision needle tip positioning. Med Phys 35:2273–2278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu H, Martin AJ, Truwit CL (1998) Interventional MRI at high-field (1.5 T): needle artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging 8:214–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gehl HB, Frahm C (1998) MRI-controlled biopsies. Radiologe 38:194–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Arbogast-Ravier S, Gangi A, Choquet P, Brunot B, Constantinesco A (1995) An in vitro study at low field for MR guidance of a biopsy needle. Magn Reson Imaging 13:321–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hall WA, Galicich W, Bergman T, Truwit CL (2006) 3-Tesla intraoperative MR imaging for neurosurgery. J Neurooncol 77:297–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Ferdinand Sauerbruch Strasse 1, 17489, Greifswald, Germany

    Jens-Peter Kühn, Sönke Langner, Katrin Hegenscheid, Norbert Hosten & Ralf Puls

  2. Department of Pathology, Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Ferdinand Sauerbruch Strasse 1, 17489, Greifswald, Germany

    Matthias Evert

  3. Siemens Healthcare, Allee am Röthelheimpark 2, 91052, Erlangen, Germany

    Antje Kickhefel

Authors
  1. Jens-Peter Kühn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sönke Langner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrin Hegenscheid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Evert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antje Kickhefel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Norbert Hosten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ralf Puls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens-Peter Kühn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kühn, JP., Langner, S., Hegenscheid, K. et al. Magnetic resonance-guided upper abdominal biopsies in a high-field wide-bore 3-T MRI system: feasibility, handling, and needle artefacts. Eur Radiol 20, 2414–2421 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1809-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1809-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation