Top

European Radiology

Published in:

Open Access 01-03-2012 | Contrast Media

MRI of colorectal cancer liver metastases: comparison of orally administered manganese with intravenously administered gadobenate dimeglumine

Authors: Torkel B. Brismar, Nikolaos Kartalis, Christian Kylander, Nils Albiin

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2012

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the sensitivity of MRI to detect colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) after ingestion of manganese-based contrast agent (CMC-001) with that of a comprehensive intravenous gadobenate dimeglumine protocol, and to assess the safety and acceptability of oral manganese.

Methods

20 patients suspected of having 1–6 CRLM were included prospectively in this randomised cross-over study. Liver MRI was performed with a one-week interval at 1.5 T and included T1-w VIBE and T2-HASTE, before and after administration of 1.6 g CMC-001 or 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine. The metastasis-to-liver signal intensity (SI) ratio was calculated. Standard of reference was histopathology after surgery, or combination of other imaging studies and/or follow up. Adverse events (AE) and clinicolaboratory tests were monitored.

Results

Of 44 metastases, 41 were detected after CMC-001 (93%) and 42 after gadobenate dimeglumine (95%). Fifteen false–positive lesions were found after CMC-001 and 2 after gadobenate dimeglumine. The metastasis-to-liver SI ratio was significantly higher after CMC-001 than after gadobenate dimeglumine (0.51 and 0.21 respectively, P < 0.0001). More AE occurred after manganese compared to gadobenate dimeglumine.

Conclusions

CMC-001 is as sensitive as an extensive intravenous gadobenate dimeglumine protocol in detecting CRLM. It was relatively well tolerated but had higher rates of gastrointestinal AE.

Key Points

• Liver MRI after ingestion of manganese is highly sensitive for detecting metastases

• High false–positive rate necessitates further evaluation, in some cases

• The MR examination time is short

• Oral ingestion of manganese seems safe and relatively well tolerated by patients

• Manganese compounds may be useful for liver metastasis surveillance after colorectal cancer

The Royal College of Radiologists (2007) RCR Referral Guidelines: Making the best use of clinical radiology services (MBUR), 6th Edition. London, pp 96–97

Schima W, Kulinna C, Langenberger H, Ba-Ssalamah A (2005) Liver metastases of colorectal cancer: US, CT or MR. Cancer Imaging 5:149–156CrossRef

Konopke R, Bunk A, Kersting S (2007) The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for focal liver lesion detection: an overview. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:1515–1526PubMedCrossRef

Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 257:674–684PubMedCrossRef

Martin DR, Danrad R, Hussain SM (2005) MR imaging of the liver. Radiol Clin North Am 43:861–886PubMedCrossRef

Thomsen HS (2011) Recent hot topics in contrast media. Eur Radiol 21:492–495PubMedCrossRef

Chabanova E, Logager V, Moller JM, Dekker H, Barentsz J, Thomsen HS (2006) Imaging liver metastases with a new oral manganese-based contrast agent. Acad Radiol 13:827–832PubMedCrossRef

Rief M, Huppertz A, Asbach P, Franiel T, Schwenke C, Hamm B, Taupitz M, Wagner M (2010) Manganese-based oral contrast agent for liver magnetic resonance imaging: evaluation of the time course and dose response of liver signal intensity enhancement. Invest Radiol 45:565–571PubMedCrossRef

Davis CD, Zech L, Greger JL (1993) Manganese metabolism in rats: an improved methodology for assessing gut endogenous losses. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 202:103–108PubMed

10.

Malecki EA, Radzanowski GM, Radzanowski TJ, Gallaher DD, Greger JL (1996) Biliary manganese excretion in conscious rats is affected by acute and chronic manganese intake but not by dietary fat. J Nutr 126:489–498PubMed

11.

Finley JW, Johnson PE, Johnson LK (1994) Sex affects manganese absorption and retention by humans from a diet adequate in manganese. Am J Clin Nutr 60:949–955PubMed

12.

Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748PubMedCrossRef

13.

Bartolozzi C, Donati F, Cioni D, Procacci C, Morana G, Chiesa A, Grazioli L, Cittadini G, Cittadini G, Giovagnoni A, Gandini G, Maass J, Lencioni R (2004) Detection of colorectal liver metastases: a prospective multicenter trial comparing unenhanced MRI, MnDPDP-enhanced MRI, and spiral CT. Eur Radiol 14:14–20PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kim YK, Lee JM, Kim CS, Chung GH, Kim CY, Kim IH (2005) Detection of liver metastases: gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced three-dimensional dynamic phases and one-hour delayed phase MR imaging versus superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 15:220–228PubMedCrossRef

15.

Choi JY, Choi JS, Kim MJ, Lim JS, Park MS, Kim JH, Chung YE (2010) Detection of hepatic hypovascular metastases: 3D gradient echo MRI using a hepatobiliary contrast agent. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:571–578PubMedCrossRef

16.

Manfredi S, Lepage C, Hatem C, Coatmeur O, Faivre J, Bouvier AM (2006) Epidemiology and management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 244:254–259PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bengmark S, Hafström L (1969) The natural history of primary and secondary malignant tumors of the liver. I. The prognosis for patients with hepatic metastases from colonic and rectal carcinoma by laparotomy. Cancer 23:198–202PubMedCrossRef

18.

de Jong MC, Pulitano C, Ribero D, Strub J, Mentha G, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Aldrighetti L, Capussotti L, Pawlik TM (2009) Rates and patterns of recurrence following curative intent surgery for colorectal liver metastasis: an international multi-institutional analysis of 1669 patients. Ann Surg 250:440–448PubMed

19.

Thomsen HS, Loegager V, Noergaard H, Chabanova E, Moller JM, Sonne J (2004) Oral manganese for liver imaging at three different field strengths. Acad Radiol 11:630–636PubMedCrossRef

Title: MRI of colorectal cancer liver metastases: comparison of orally administered manganese with intravenously administered gadobenate dimeglumine
Authors: Torkel B. Brismar
Nikolaos Kartalis
Christian Kylander
Nils Albiin
Publication date: 01-03-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2288-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

MRI of colorectal cancer liver metastases: comparison of orally administered manganese with intravenously administered gadobenate dimeglumine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Patterns in early diffusion-weighted MRI in children with haemolytic uraemic syndrome and CNS involvement

One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis

Functional MR imaging of the Eustachian tube in patients with clinically proven dysfunction: correlation with lesions detected on MR images

Performing MR-guided biopsies in clinical routine: factors that influence accuracy and procedure time

Percutaneous removal of sentinel lymph nodes in a swine model using a breast lesion excision system and contrast-enhanced ultrasound

Economic analysis of the use of coronary calcium scoring as an alternative to stress ECG in the non-invasive diagnosis of coronary artery disease