Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 2/2019

Open Access 01-02-2019 | Magnetic Resonance

Does gadoxetate disodium affect MRE measurements in the delayed hepatobiliary phase?

Authors: M. Plaikner, C. Kremser, H. Zoller, M. Steurer, B. Glodny, W. Jaschke, B. Henninger

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To assess if the administration of gadoxetate disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) significantly affects hepatic magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) measurements in the delayed hepatobiliary phase (DHBP).

Methods

A total of 47 patients (15 females, 32 males; age range 23–78 years, mean 54.28 years) were assigned to standard hepatic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with application of Gd-EOB-DTPA and hepatic MRE. MRE was performed before injection of Gd-EOB-DTPA and after 40–50 min in the DHBP. Liver stiffness values were obtained before and after contrast media application and differences between pre- and post-Gd-EOB-DTPA values were evaluated using a Bland-Altman plot and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. In addition, the data were compared with regard to the resulting fibrosis classification.

Results

Mean hepatic stiffness for pre-Gd-EOB-DTPA measurements was 4.01 kPa and post-Gd-EOB-DTPA measurements yielded 3.95 kPa. We found a highly significant individual correlation between pre- and post-Gd-EOB-DTPA stiffness values (Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.95 (p < 0.001) with no significant difference between the two measurements (p =0.49)). Bland-Altman plot did not show a systematic effect for the difference between pre- and post-stiffness measurements (mean difference: 0.06 kPa, SD 0.81). Regarding the classification of fibrosis stages, the overall agreement was 87.23% and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 96.4%, indicating excellent agreement.

Conclusions

Administration of Gd-EOB-DTPA does not significantly influence MRE stiffness measurements of the liver in the DHBP. Therefore, MRE can be performed in the DHBP.

Key Points

• MRE of the liver can reliably be performed in the delayed hepatobiliary phase.
• Gd-EOB-DTPA does not significantly influence MRE stiffness measurements of the liver.
• MRE performed in the delayed hepatobiliary-phase is reasonable in patients with reduced liver function.
Literature
1.
Low G, Kruse SA, Lomas DJ (2016) General review of magnetic resonance elastography. World J Radiol 8:59–72CrossRef
2.
Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: clinical applications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:887–896CrossRef
3.
Godfrey EM, Mannelli L, Griffin N, Lomas DJ (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography in the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 34:81–88CrossRef
4.
Haimerl M, Wachtler M, Zeman F et al (2014) Quantitative evaluation of enhancement patterns in focal solid liver lesions with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. PLoS One 9:e100315CrossRef
5.
Van Beers BE, Pastor CM, Hussain HK (2012) Primovist, Eovist: what to expect? J Hepatol 57:421–429CrossRef
6.
Neri E, Bali MA, Ba-Ssalamah A et al (2016) ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. Eur Radiol 26:921–931CrossRef
7.
Goodwin MD, Dobson JE, Sirlin CB, Lim BG, Stella DL (2011) Diagnostic challenges and pitfalls in MR imaging with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. Radiographics 31:1547–1568CrossRef
8.
Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL (2015) Magnetic resonance elastography of abdomen. Abdom Imaging 40:745–759CrossRef
9.
Zhong X, Nickel MD, Kannengiesser SA, Dale BM, Kiefer B, Bashir MR (2014) Liver fat quantification using a multi-step adaptive fitting approach with multi-echo GRE imaging. Magn Reson Med 72:1353–1365CrossRef
10.
Imajo K, Kessoku T, Honda Y et al (2016) Magnetic Resonance Imaging More Accurately Classifies Steatosis and Fibrosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Than Transient Elastography. Gastroenterology 150(626-637):e627
11.
Mariappan YK, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL (2010) Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin Anat 23:497–511CrossRef
12.
Henninger B, Zoller H, Kannengiesser S, Zhong X, Jaschke W, Kremser C (2017) 3D Multiecho dixon for the evaluation of hepatic iron and fat in a clinical setting. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:793–800
13.
Adams P, Brissot P, Powell LW (2000) EASL International Consensus Conference on Haemochromatosis. J Hepatol 33:485–504CrossRef
14.
15.
16.
Golfieri R, Garzillo G, Ascanio S, Renzulli M (2014) Focal lesions in the cirrhotic liver: their pivotal role in gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and recognition by the Western guidelines. Dig Dis 32:696–704CrossRef
17.
Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL (2014) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:433–446CrossRef
18.
Mannelli L, Godfrey E, Joubert I et al (2010) MR elastography: Spleen stiffness measurements in healthy volunteers--preliminary experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:387–392CrossRef
19.
Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:13–28CrossRef
20.
Hallinan JT, Alsaif HS, Wee A, Venkatesh SK (2015) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: influence of intravenous gadolinium administration on measured liver stiffness. Abdom Imaging 40:783–788CrossRef
21.
Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H et al (2012) Effects of gadoxetic acid on liver elasticity measurement by using magnetic resonance elastography. Magn Reson Imaging 30:128–132CrossRef
22.
Giovagnoni A, Paci E (1996) Liver. III: Gadolinium-based hepatobiliary contrast agents (Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA/Dimeg). Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 4:61–72
23.
Chiu FY, Jao JC, Chen CY et al (2005) Effect of intravenous gadolinium-DTPA on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images for evaluation of focal hepatic lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 29:176–180CrossRef
24.
Choi JS, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Park MS, Lim JS, Kim KW (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of liver on 3.0-Tesla system: effect of intravenous administration of gadoxetic acid disodium. Eur Radiol 20:1052–1060CrossRef
25.
Palmucci S (2014) Focal liver lesions detection and characterization: The advantages of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI. World J Hepatol 6:477–485CrossRef
26.
Verloh N, Haimerl M, Rennert J et al (2013) Impact of liver cirrhosis on liver enhancement at Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI at 3 Tesla. Eur J Radiol 82:1710–1715CrossRef
27.
Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A et al (1995) Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 195:785–792CrossRef
28.
Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Shamsi K et al (1996) Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: dose, safety aspects, and pulse sequence. Radiology 199:177–183CrossRef
29.
Tsuda N, Okada M, Murakami T (2007) Potential of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) for differential diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and fatty liver in rats using magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 42:242–247CrossRef
30.
Phongkitkarun S, Limsamutpetch K, Tannaphai P, Jatchavala J (2013) Added value of hepatobiliary phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients. World J Gastroenterol 19:8357–8365CrossRef
31.
Chernyak V, Kim J, Rozenblit AM, Mazzoriol F, Ricci Z (2011) Hepatic enhancement during the hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetate disodium administration in patients with chronic liver disease: the role of laboratory factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:301–309CrossRef
32.
Davenport MS, Viglianti BL, Al-Hawary MM et al (2013) Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality. Radiology 266:452–461CrossRef
33.
Fujinaga Y, Kitou Y, Ohya A et al (2016) Advantages of radial volumetric breath-hold examination (VIBE) with k-space weighted image contrast reconstruction (KWIC) over Cartesian VIBE in liver imaging of volunteers simulating inadequate or no breath-holding ability. Eur Radiol 26:2790–2797CrossRef
34.
Mannelli L, Godfrey E, Graves MJ et al (2012) Magnetic resonance elastography: feasibility of liver stiffness measurements in healthy volunteers at 3T. Clin Radiol 67:258–262CrossRef
35.
Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Wang Z et al (2015) Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(440-451):e446
36.
Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40:715–724CrossRef
37.
Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:544–555CrossRef
38.
Mannelli L, Wilson GJ, Dubinsky TJ et al (2012) Assessment of the liver strain among cirrhotic and normal livers using tagged MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1490–1495CrossRef
39.
40.
41.
Wang Y, Ganger DR, Levitsky J et al (2011) Assessment of chronic hepatitis and fibrosis: comparison of MR elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:553–561CrossRef
42.
Toguchi M, Tsurusaki M, Yada N et al (2017) Magnetic resonance elastography in the assessment of hepatic fibrosis: a study comparing transient elastography and histological data in the same patients. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:1659–1666CrossRef
43.
Serai SD, Obuchowski NA, Venkatesh SK et al (2017) Repeatability of MR Elastography of Liver: A Meta-Analysis. Radiology 285:92–100CrossRef
44.
Lee Y, Lee JM, Lee JE et al (2014) MR elastography for noninvasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: reproducibility of the examination and reproducibility and repeatability of the liver stiffness value measurement. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:326–331CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Does gadoxetate disodium affect MRE measurements in the delayed hepatobiliary phase?
Authors
M. Plaikner
C. Kremser
H. Zoller
M. Steurer
B. Glodny
W. Jaschke
B. Henninger
Publication date
01-02-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5616-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

European Radiology 2/2019 Go to the issue

Interventional

Benign anastomotic biliary strictures untreatable by ERCP: a novel percutaneous balloon dilatation technique avoiding indwelling catheters

Chest

Radiomics signature: a biomarker for the preoperative discrimination of lung invasive adenocarcinoma manifesting as a ground-glass nodule

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Delayed tumour enhancement on gadoxetate-enhanced MRI is associated with overall survival in patients with colorectal liver metastases

Gastrointestinal

Magnetic resonance elastography can predict development of hepatocellular carcinoma with longitudinally acquired two-point data

Musculoskeletal

Systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging features for diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder

Musculoskeletal

Validation of scoring hip osteoarthritis with MRI (SHOMRI) scores using hip arthroscopy as a standard of reference