Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2301020269
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huppertz, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vogl, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Huppertz, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vogl, T. J.
(Radiology 2004;230:266-275.)
© RSNA, 2004


Gastrointestinal Imaging

Improved Detection of Focal Liver Lesions at MR Imaging: Multicenter Comparison of Gadoxetic Acid–enhanced MR Images with Intraoperative Findings1

Alexander Huppertz, MD, Thomas Balzer, MD, Anthony Blakeborough, MD, Josy Breuer, MD, Andrea Giovagnoni, MD, Gertraud Heinz-Peer, MD, Michael Laniado, MD, Riccardo M. Manfredi, MD, Didier G. Mathieu, MD, Dieter Mueller, MD, Peter Reimer, MD, Philip J. Robinson, MD, Michael Strotzer, MD, Matthias Taupitz, MD and Thomas J. Vogl, MD, , For the European EOB Study Group2

1 From the Institute of Clinical Radiology, Klinikum Grosshadern, University of Munich, Germany (A.H.) and Department of Clinical Development Diagnostics, Schering, Muellerstrasse 178, D-13342 Berlin, Germany (A.H., T.B., J.B.). The complete list of authors and their affiliations is at the end of this article. Received March 15, 2002; revision requested May 29; final revision received May 6, 2003; accepted June 16. Address correspondence to A.H. (e-mail: alexander.huppertz@schering.de).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of gadoxetic acid disodium–enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the detection of focal liver lesions, with results of histopathologic examination and/or intraoperative ultrasonography used as a standard of reference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-nine patients who were known to have or suspected of having focal liver lesions and were scheduled for liver surgery were included in this study. Results in 131 patients could be included in the efficacy analysis. MR imaging was performed before and immediately and 20 minutes after bolus injection of 0.025 mmol/kg of the liver-specific hepatobiliary contrast agent gadoxetic acid. T1-weighted gradient-echo (with and without fat saturation and including dynamic data sets) and T2-weighted fast spin-echo/turbo spin-echo sequences were performed. All images were evaluated on site and by three independent and blinded off-site reviewers. Lesion matching based on the standard-of-reference results was performed. Differences in lesion detection with precontrast and with postcontrast MR images were assessed with the two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS: Gadoxetic acid was well tolerated. In the on-site review, the number of patients in whom all lesions were correctly matched increased from 89 of 129 patients at precontrast MR imaging to 103 of 129 patients at postcontrast MR imaging. In the off-site evaluation, the number of patients in whom all lesions were correctly matched and the corresponding sensitivity values increased from 72 (55.8%), 68 (52.7%), and 66 (51.2%) with the precontrast images to 88 (68.2%), 69 (53.5%), and 76 (58.9%) with the postcontrast images for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Two of the three blinded readers showed a statistically significant difference in lesion detection between precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging (P < .001 and P = .008). A large number of additionally correctly detected and localized lesions were smaller than 1 cm.

CONCLUSION: MR imaging with gadoxetic acid is safe and improves lesion detection and localization.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Contrast media • Liver neoplasms, diagnosis, 761.312, 761.3192, 761.3194, 761.3198, 761.321, 761.323, 761.33, 761.34 • Liver neoplasms, localization, 761.312, 761.3192, 761.3194, 761.3198, 761.321, 761.323, 761.33, 761.34 • Liver neoplasms, MR, 761.12143 • Magnetic resonance (MR), contrast media




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
O. Giovanoli, M. Heim, L. Terracciano, G. Bongartz, and H. P. Ledermann
MRI of Hepatic Adenomatosis: Initial Observations with Gadoxetic Acid Contrast Agent in Three Patients
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): W290 - W293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. V. Sahani, S. P. Kalva, A. J. Fischman, R. Kadavigere, M. Blake, P. F. Hahn, and S. Saini
Detection of Liver Metastases from Adenocarcinoma of the Colon and Pancreas: Comparison of Mangafodipir Trisodium-Enhanced Liver MRI and Whole-Body FDG PET
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2005; 185(1): 239 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. Huppertz, S. Haraida, A. Kraus, C. J. Zech, J. Scheidler, J. Breuer, T. K. Helmberger, and M. F. Reiser
Enhancement of Focal Liver Lesions at Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MR Imaging: Correlation with Histopathologic Findings and Spiral CT--Initial Observations
Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 468 - 478.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2004 by the Radiological Society of North America.