Hepatic hemangiomas: Difference in enhancement pattern on 3T MR imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadoxetate disodium
Creators
- 1. Duke University Medical Center, Department of Radiology, DUMC 3808, Durham, NC 27710 (United States)
Description
Purpose: To compare intraindividual differences in enhancement pattern of hepatic hemangiomas between gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) and gadoxetate disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced 3T MR imaging. Materials and methods: This is a HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study with waiver for informed consent granted. From 10/07 to 5/09, 10 patients (2 males, 8 females; mean age, 57.3 years) with 15 hepatic hemangiomas (mean diameter, 4.4 ± 5.6 cm) underwent both Gd-BOPTA- and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3T MR imaging (mean interval, 266 days; range, 38–462 days). Diagnosis of hemangioma was based on strict imaging criteria. MR imaging was obtained during three arterial, portal venous, and up to four delayed phases. During each phase, hemangioma-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured for each lesion on both examinations. Statistical analysis was performed using paired Student's t-test. Results: Hemangioma-to-liver CNR peaked during the portal venous phase (Gd-BOPTA: 48.9 ± 65.8, Gd-EOB-DTPA: 0.7 ± 3.8). During all imaging phases except the first arterial phase, hemangioma-to-liver CNR was significantly lower on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced compared to Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR images (p < 0.05). Notably, Gd-EOB-DTPA yielded negative hemangioma-to-liver CNR (−2.5 ± 2.4) compared to Gd-BOPTA (40.7 ± 56.4) during the first delayed phase (7–8 min after contrast administration), remaining negative for the rest of the delayed phases (up to 26 min after contrast administration). Conclusion: The enhancement patterns of hepatic hemangiomas differs significantly between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3T MR imaging. The smaller dose, shorter plasma half-life, and increased hepatobiliary uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA leads to a negative CNR of hemangioma-to-liver on delayed phases and could create an imaging pitfall with this agent
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.10.014Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.10.014;
- PII
- S0720-048X(11)00757-1;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- European Journal of Radiology
- Journal Volume
- 81
- Journal Issue
- 10
- Journal Page Range
- p. 2457-2462
- ISSN
- 0720-048X
- CODEN
- EJRADR
INIS
- Country of Publication
- Netherlands
- Country of Input or Organization
- Cuba
- INIS RN
- 45043833
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- ANGIOMAS; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; DIAGNOSIS; DOSES; DTPA; FEMALES; IMAGES; LIVER; MALES; PATIENTS
- Descriptors DEC
- AMINO ACIDS; BODY; CARBOXYLIC ACIDS; CARCINOMAS; CHELATING AGENTS; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DISEASES; DRUGS; EVALUATION; GLANDS; NEOPLASMS; ORGANIC ACIDS; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; ORGANS; RADIOPROTECTIVE SUBSTANCES; RESPONSE MODIFYING FACTORS
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.