Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radial volumetric imaging breath-hold examination (VIBE) with k-space weighted image contrast (KWIC) for dynamic gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI of the liver: advantages over Cartesian VIBE in the arterial phase

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare radial volumetric imaging breath-hold examination with k-space weighted image contrast reconstruction (r-VIBE-KWIC) to Cartesian VIBE (c-VIBE) in arterial phase dynamic gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the liver.

Methods

We reviewed 53 consecutive DCE-MRI studies performed on a 3-T unit using c-VIBE and 53 consecutive cases performed using r-VIBE-KWIC with full-frame image subset (r-VIBEfull) and sub-frame image subsets (r-VIBEsub; temporal resolution, 2.5–3 s). All arterial phase images were scored by two readers on: (1) contrast-enhancement ratio (CER) in the abdominal aorta; (2) scan timing; (3) artefacts; (4) visualisation of the common, right, and left hepatic arteries.

Results

Mean abdominal aortic CERs for c-VIBE, r-VIBEfull, and r-VIBEsub were 3.2, 4.3 and 6.5, respectively. There were significant differences between each group (P < 0.0001). The mean score for c-VIBE was significantly lower than that for r-VIBEfull and r-VIBEsub in all factors except for visualisation of the common hepatic artery (P < 0.05). The mean score of all factors except for scan timing for r-VIBEsub was not significantly different from that for r-VIBEfull.

Conclusions

Radial VIBE-KWIC provides higher image quality than c-VIBE, and r-VIBEsub features high temporal resolution without image degradation in arterial phase DCE-MRI.

Key Points

• Radial VIBE-KWIC minimised artefact and produced high-quality and high-temporal-resolution images.

• Maximum abdominal aortic enhancement was observed on sub-frame images of r-VIBE-KWIC.

• Using r-VIBE-KWIC, optimal arterial phase images were obtained in over 90 %.

• Using r-VIBE-KWIC, visualisation of the hepatic arteries was improved.

• A two-reader study revealed r-VIBE-KWIC’s advantages over Cartesian VIBE.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

VIBE:

Volumetric imaging breath-hold examination

KWIC:

k-space weighted image contrast reconstruction

DCE-MRI:

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

CER:

Contrast-enhancement ratio

References

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A et al (2004) Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology 230:266–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

  6. Petersein J, Spinazzi A, Giovagnoni A et al (2000) Focal liver lesions: evaluation of the efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine in MR imaging—a multicenter phase III clinical study. Radiology 215:727–736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brismar TB, Dahlstrom N, Edsborg N, Persson A, Smedby O, Albiin N (2009) Liver vessel enhancement by Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA: a comparison in healthy volunteers. Acta Radiol 50:709–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tamada T, Ito K, Sone T et al (2009) 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 29:636–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fujinaga Y, Ueda H, Kitou Y, Tsukahara Y, Sugiyama Y, Kadoya M (2012) Time-intensity curve in the abdominal aorta on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with high temporal and spatial resolution: Gd-EOB-DTPA versus Gd-DTPA in vivo. Jpn J Radiol 31:166–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanimoto A, Lee JM, Murakami T, Huppertz A, Kudo M, Grazioli L (2009) Consensus report of the 2nd International Forum for Liver MRI. Eur Radiol 19:S975–S989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Svensson J, Petersson JS, Stahlberg F, Larsson EM, Leander P, Olsson LE (1999) Image artifacts due to a time-varying contrast medium concentration in 3D contrast-enhanced MRA. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:919–928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vigen KK, Peters DC, Grist TM, Block WF, Mistretta CA (2000) Undersampled projection-reconstruction imaging for time-resolved contrast-enhanced imaging. Magn Reson Med 43:170–176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Song HK, Dougherty L (2004) Dynamic MRI with projection reconstruction and KWIC processing for simultaneous high spatial and temporal resolution. Magn Reson Med 52:815–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim KW, Lee JM, Jeon YS et al (2012) Free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the abdomen and chest using a radial gradient echo sequence with K-space weighted image contrast (KWIC). Eur Radiol 23:1352–1360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim JH, Lee JM, Park JH et al (2013) Solid pancreatic lesions: characterization by using timing bolus dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging assessment—a preliminary study. Radiology 266:185–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brodsky EK, Bultman EM, Johnson KM et al (2013) High-spatial and high-temporal resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion imaging of the liver with time-resolved three-dimensional radial MRI. Magn Reson Med. doi:10.1002/mrm.24727

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ueda K, Matsui O, Kawamori Y et al (1998) Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation of hemodynamics with dynamic CT during hepatic arteriography. Radiology 206:161–166

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Miyayama S, Matsui O, Ueda K et al (2000) Hemodynamics of small hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia: evaluation with single-level dynamic CT during hepatic arteriography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1567–1569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM et al (2002) Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 47:1202–1210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yagyu Y, Awai K, Inoue M et al (2005) MDCT of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas: a prospective study using contrast materials with different iodine concentrations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1535–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sofue K, Tsurusaki M, Kawasaki R, Fujii M, Sugimura K (2011) Evaluation of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic liver: comparison of different concentrations of contrast material with multi-detector row helical CT–a prospective randomized study. Eur J Radiol 80:e237–e242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chung SH, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Hong HS (2010) Comparison of two different injection rates of gadoxetic acid for arterial phase MRI of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:365–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Haradome H, Grazioli L, Tsunoo M et al (2010) Can MR fluoroscopic triggering technique and slow rate injection provide appropriate arterial phase images with reducing artifacts on gadoxetic acid-DTPA (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced hepatic MR imaging? J Magn Reson Imaging 32:334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ito K, Fujita T, Shimizu A et al (2004) Multiarterial phase dynamic MRI of small early enhancing hepatic lesions in cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis: differentiating between hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas and pseudolesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:699–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mori K, Yoshioka H, Takahashi N et al (2005) Triple arterial phase dynamic MRI with sensitivity encoding for hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of the diagnostic accuracy among the early, middle, late, and whole triple arterial phase imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Glover GH, Noll DC (1993) Consistent projection reconstruction (CPR) techniques for MRI. Magn Reson Med 29:345–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Block KT, Uecker M, Frahm J (2007) Undersampled radial MRI with multiple coils. Iterative image reconstruction using a total variation constraint. Magn Reson Med 57:1086–1098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kagawa Y, Okada M, Kumano S et al (2011) Optimal scanning protocol of arterial dominant phase for hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma with gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced MR. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:864–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Masumi Kadoya. 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. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

No animal subjects are included in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic study, performed at one institution.

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, Hirokazu Tokoro, Akira Yamada, Kazuhiko Ueda & Masumi Kadoya

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

    Hitoshi Ueda, Yoshihiro Kitou, Yasuo Adachi, Aya Shiobara & Naomichi Tamaru

  3. Siemens AG Healthcare Sector, H IM MR PI TIO Oncology, Erlangen, Germany

    Marcel D. Nickel

  4. Imaging & Therapy Systems Division, Siemens Japan. K. K., Shinagawa, Tokyo, Japan

    Katsuya Maruyama

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. Hirokazu Tokoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Akira Yamada
    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. Hitoshi Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yoshihiro Kitou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yasuo Adachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Aya Shiobara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Naomichi Tamaru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Marcel D. Nickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Katsuya Maruyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Masumi Kadoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasunari Fujinaga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fujinaga, Y., Ohya, A., Tokoro, H. et al. Radial volumetric imaging breath-hold examination (VIBE) with k-space weighted image contrast (KWIC) for dynamic gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI of the liver: advantages over Cartesian VIBE in the arterial phase. Eur Radiol 24, 1290–1299 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3122-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3122-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation