HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2371031842v1 237/1/89    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bluemke, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bluemke, D. A.

Efficacy and Safety of MR Imaging with Liver-specific Contrast Agent: U.S. Multicenter Phase III Study¹

¹ From the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287 (D.A.B.). The complete list of authors and affiliations is at the end of this article. Received November 18, 2003; revision requested February 6, 2004; revision received November 18; accepted December 30. Supported by Berlex Laboratories. Address correspondence to D.A.B.

PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the efficacy and safety of postcontrast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) compared with that of precontrast MR imaging in patients who are known to have or are suspected of having liver lesions and who are scheduled for hepatic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Investigational review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. HIPAA went into effect after data collection. A total of 172 patients were enrolled. After precontrast MR imaging, 169 patients (94 men, 75 women; mean age, 61 years; age range, 19–84 years) received an intravenous bolus of 25 µmol/kg Gd-EOB-DTPA and underwent dynamic gradient-recalled-echo and delayed MR imaging 20 minutes after injection. Arterial and portal phase computed tomography (CT) were performed within 6 weeks of MR imaging. The standard of reference was surgery with intraoperative ultrasonography (US) and biopsy and/or pathologic evaluation of resected liver segments and/or 3-month follow-up of nonresected segments if intraoperative US was not available. Three blinded reviewers and unblinded site investigators identified liver lesions on segment maps. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare differences in per-patient sensitivity of precontrast and postcontrast MR images. Adverse events were recorded, and patient monitoring and laboratory assay were performed at time of injection and up to 24 hours after contrast material administration.

RESULTS: At MR imaging, 316 lesions were identified in 131 patients. In 77% (P = .012), 72% (P = .15), and 71% (P = .027) of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, more lesions were seen at precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging combined than at precontrast MR imaging alone. Sensitivity values for blinded readings were significantly greater at postcontrast MR imaging than at precontrast MR imaging for two of three blinded readers. For all blinded readers, combined precontrast and postcontrast MR images showed no difference in sensitivity compared with helical CT scans. The use of MR imaging, however, yielded fewer patients with at least one false-positive lesion (37%, 31%, and 34% of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively) than did helical CT (45%, 36%, and 43% of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Compared with precontrast MR imaging, postcontrast MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA demonstrated improved sensitivity for lesion detection in the majority of blinded readers, with no substantial adverse events.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. M. Vogt, G. Antoch, P. Veit, L. S. Freudenberg, N. Blechschmid, O. Diersch, A. Bockisch, J. Barkhausen, and H. Kuehl Morphologic and Functional Changes in Nontumorous Liver Tissue After Radiofrequency Ablation in an In Vivo Model: Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, Ultrasound, and CT J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2007; 48(11): 1836 - 1844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]