Premium
Assessment of fast dynamic imaging and the use of Gd‐EOB‐DTPA for MR‐guided liver interventions
Author(s) -
Fischbach Frank,
Thormann Markus,
Seidensticker Max,
Kropf Siegfried,
Pech Maciej,
Ricke Jens
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.22691
Subject(s) - medicine , nuclear medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , lesion , dynamic imaging , dynamic contrast , contrast (vision) , radiology , neuroradiology , pathology , image processing , neurology , artificial intelligence , psychiatry , computer science , digital image processing , image (mathematics)
Purpose: 1) To analyze and compare fast dynamic imaging sequences to biopsy suspect liver lesions. 2) To evaluate the additional use of hepatocyte‐specific contrast agent compared to the nonenhanced fast dynamic scans and diagnostic liver imaging. Materials and Methods: Image acquisition was performed using a 1T open‐configured scanner suitable for interventional purposes. Transversal postcontrast T1‐weighted (T1w) fat‐saturated 3D high‐resolution examination (THRIVE) images were acquired >20 minutes postintravenous application of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd‐EOB‐DTPA). A single slice, crossing the level of the lesion, was acquired using intermediate‐weighted steady‐state free‐precession (bTFE), T1w‐gradient echo and spin echo (T1FFE/TSE), T2w‐spin echo (sshTSE) sequences. T1w imaging was acquired prior and after contrast media application. Diagnostic and fast dynamic images were compared based on a 10‐point rating scale. In addition, the liver‐to‐lesion‐contrast ratio was measured. Results: A total of 39 malignant lesions with a mean diameter of 13 mm (5–30 mm) in 39 patients were included. Concerning a test of noninferiority, there was no significant difference between rating score values of fast dynamic imaging employing contrast‐enhanced T1FFE‐sequences compared to diagnostic THRIVE ( P = 0.001). Calculated liver‐to‐lesion contrast also showed no difference for either imaging sequence ( P = 1.0). All other sequences tested showed significant inferiority ( P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: T1w Gd‐EOB‐DTPA contrast‐enhanced fast dynamic GRE imaging significantly improves the contrast behavior of malignant liver lesions comparable to diagnostic imaging and is best suited for liver intervention, especially at 1T open magnetic resonance imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011;. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.