Skip to content
2000
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
file format pdf download PDF
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Background:

Chronic liver disease (CLD) will affect the enhancement of hepatic parenchyma and portal vein on abdominal-enhanced MRI.

Objective:

To investigate the difference in liver parenchyma and portal vein enhancement in patients with CLD of different liver function grades between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DPTA in the portal venous phase (PVP).

Methods:

This retrospective study included 218 patients with CLD who had undergone abdominal enhanced MRI from January 2019 to June 2020. Patients with various degrees of liver dysfunction were identified with Child-Turcotte-Pugh and albumin-bilirubin grade. Two readers measured the precontrast and PVP signal intensities of liver parenchyma, portal vein, spleen, and psoas muscle. Relative liver enhancement, liver-to-spleen contrast index, portal vein image contrast, and portal vein-to-liver contrast were calculated.

Results:

The relative enhancement of liver parenchyma was significantly lower for the Gd-EOB-DTPA group in any degree of liver function than the Gd-DTPA group in the PVP. The Gd-EOB-DTPA group showed significantly lower portal vein-to-liver contrast in the overall study population, CTP class B, and ALBI grade 2 patients compared to the group of Gd-DTPA at PVP. No significant difference was noted in the portal vein image contrast between the two contrast agents, regardless of CTP and ALBI grading.

Conclusion:

In CLD patients, Gd-EOB-DTPA yielded lower liver parenchymal enhancement and similar portal vein image contrast compared to Gd-DTPA in the PVP. Portal vein-to-liver contrast in the Gd-EOB-DTPA group was lower in the CTP class B and ALBI grade 2 subgroups compared to the Gd-DTPA group.

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publisher.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056277782231108190618
2023-12-05
2025-09-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056277782231108190618
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cmir/20/1/e15734056277782.html?itemId=/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056277782231108190618&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. MarcellinP. GaneE. ButiM. AfdhalN. SievertW. JacobsonI.M. WashingtonM.K. GermanidisG. FlahertyJ.F. SchallR.A. BornsteinJ.D. KitrinosK.M. SubramanianG.M. McHutchisonJ.G. HeathcoteE.J. Regression of cirrhosis during treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B: A 5-year open-label follow-up study.Lancet2013381986546847510.1016/S0140‑6736(12)61425‑123234725
     [Google Scholar]
  2. YounossiZ.M. KoenigA.B. AbdelatifD. FazelY. HenryL. WymerM. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease—Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes.Hepatology2016641738410.1002/hep.2843126707365
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AhmedA. WongR.J. HarrisonS.A. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease review: Diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.201513122062207010.1016/j.cgh.2015.07.02926226097
     [Google Scholar]
  4. YauT. TangV.Y.F. YaoT.J. FanS.T. LoC.M. PoonR.T.P. Development of Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging system with treatment stratification for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Gastroenterology2014146716911700.e310.1053/j.gastro.2014.02.03224583061
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BruixJ. ShermanM. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: An update.Hepatology20115331020102210.1002/hep.2419921374666
     [Google Scholar]
  6. JohnsonP.J. BerhaneS. KagebayashiC. SatomuraS. TengM. ReevesH.L. O’BeirneJ. FoxR. SkowronskaA. PalmerD. YeoW. MoF. LaiP. IñarrairaeguiM. ChanS.L. SangroB. MiksadR. TadaT. KumadaT. ToyodaH. Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade.J. Clin. Oncol.201533655055810.1200/JCO.2014.57.915125512453
     [Google Scholar]
  7. GranitoA. BolondiL. Non-transplant therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh-Turcotte class B cirrhosis.Lancet Oncol.2017182e101e11210.1016/S1470‑2045(16)30569‑128214411
     [Google Scholar]
  8. HaimerlM. FuhrmannI. PoelsterlS. FellnerC. NickelM.D. WeigandK. DahlkeM.H. VerlohN. StroszczynskiC. WiggermannP. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced T1 relaxometry for assessment of liver function determined by real-time 13C-methacetin breath test.Eur. Radiol.20182893591360010.1007/s00330‑018‑5337‑y29532241
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GarteiserP. LeporqB. RautouP-E. VallaD. Van BeersB. Quantitative imaging in diffuse liver diseases.Semin. Liver Dis.201737324325810.1055/s‑0037‑160365128847035
     [Google Scholar]
  10. TheiligD. SteffenI. MalinowskiM. StockmannM. SeehoferD. PratschkeJ. HammB. DeneckeT. GeiselD. Predicting liver failure after extended right hepatectomy following right portal vein embolization with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.Eur. Radiol.201929115861587210.1007/s00330‑019‑06101‑230899977
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HammB. StaksT. MühlerA. BollowM. TaupitzM. FrenzelT. WolfK.J. WeinmannH.J. LangeL. Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: Safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging.Radiology1995195378579210.1148/radiology.195.3.77540117754011
     [Google Scholar]
  12. VoglT.J. KümmelS. HammerstinglR. SchellenbeckM. SchumacherG. BalzerT. SchwarzW. MüllerP.K. BechsteinW.O. MackM.G. SöllnerO. FelixR. Liver tumors: Comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA.Radiology19962001596710.1148/radiology.200.1.86579468657946
     [Google Scholar]
  13. WelleC.L. GuglielmoF.F. VenkateshS.K. MRI of the liver: Choosing the right contrast agent.Abdom. Radiol.202045238439210.1007/s00261‑019‑02162‑531392396
     [Google Scholar]
  14. HiraokaA. KumadaT. KudoM. HirookaM. TsujiK. ItobayashiE. KariyamaK. IshikawaT. TajiriK. OchiH. TadaT. ToyodaH. NousoK. JokoK. KawasakiH. HiasaY. MichitakaK. Albumin-bilirubin (albi) grade as part of the evidence-based clinical practice guideline for hcc of the japan society of hepatology: A comparison with the liver damage and child-pugh classifications.Liver Cancer20176320421510.1159/00045284628626732
     [Google Scholar]
  15. BrismarT.B. DahlströmN. EdsborgN. PerssonA. SmedbyÖ. AlbiinN. Liver vessel enhancement by gd-bopta and gd-eob-dtpa: A comparison in healthy volunteers.Acta Radiol.200950770971510.1080/0284185090305560319701821
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HaimerlM. VerlohN. ZemanF. FellnerC. NickelD. LangS.A. TeufelA. StroszczynskiC. WiggermannP. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for evaluation of liver function: Comparison between signal-intensity-based indices and T1 relaxometry.Scientific Reports2017714334710.1038/srep43347
     [Google Scholar]
  17. FilipponeA. BlakeboroughA. BreuerJ. GrazioliL. GschwendS. HammerstinglR. Heinz-PeerG. KittnerT. LaghiA. LeenE. LencioniR. LucidarmeO. RemplikP. RobinsonP.J. RuehmS.G. SchaeferF. StoupisC. TombachB. ValetteP.J. ZechC.J. HuppertzA. Enhancement of liver parenchyma after injection of hepatocyte-specific MRI contrast media: A comparison of gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging201031235636410.1002/jmri.2205420099349
     [Google Scholar]
  18. FeuerleinS. GuptaR.T. BollD.T. MerkleE.M. Hepatocellular MR contrast agents: Enhancement characteristics of liver parenchyma and portal vein after administration of gadoxetic acid in comparison to gadobenate dimeglumine.Eur. J. Radiol.20128192037204110.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.01421719224
     [Google Scholar]
  19. BeerL. MandorferM. BastatiN. Poetter-LangS. TamandlD. StoyanovaD.P. ElmerM.C. SemmlerG. SimbrunnerB. HodgeJ.C. SirlinC.B. ReibergerT. Ba-SsalamahA. Inter- and intra-reader agreement for gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI parameter readings in patients with chronic liver diseases.Eur. Radiol.201929126600661010.1007/s00330‑019‑06182‑z31001679
     [Google Scholar]
  20. TamadaT. ItoK. SoneT. YamamotoA. YoshidaK. KakubaK. TanimotoD. HigashiH. YamashitaT. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal solid organ and major vessel: Comparison of enhancement effect between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging200929363664010.1002/jmri.2168919243060
     [Google Scholar]
  21. KimM.J. KimS.H. KimH.J. KimB.S. HernandesM. SemelkaR.C. Enhancement of liver and pancreas on late hepatic arterial phase Imaging: Quantitative comparison among multiple gadolinium-based contrast agents at 1.5 tesla MRI.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging201338110210810.1002/jmri.2393423677890
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LinC.Y. ChangW.C. ChouC.T. ChenR.C. Dynamic-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cirrhotic liver parenchyma: A comparison between gadolinium–diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid and gadolinium–ethoxybenzyl–diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid.J. Chin. Med. Assoc.2015781166667210.1016/j.jcma.2015.07.00526341453
     [Google Scholar]
  23. ChenC.Z. RaoS.X. DingY. ZhangS.J. LiF. GaoQ. ZengM.S. Hepatocellular carcinoma 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis patients: Early magnetic resonance enhancement by gadoxetic acid compared with gadopentetate dimeglumine.Hepatol. Int.20148110411110.1007/s12072‑013‑9467‑726202411
     [Google Scholar]
  24. VernuccioF. CannellaR. GozzoC. GrecoV. MidiriM. FurlanA. TangA. BrancatelliG. Hepatic enhancement in cirrhosis in the portal venous phase: What are the differences between gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine?Abdom. Radiol.20204582409241710.1007/s00261‑020‑02578‑432435849
     [Google Scholar]
  25. ReimerP. RummenyE.J. ShamsiK. BalzerT. DaldrupH.E. TombachB. HesseT. BernsT. PetersP.E. Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: Dose, safety aspects, and pulse sequence.Radiology1996199117718310.1148/radiology.199.1.86331438633143
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Schuhmann-GiampieriG. Schmitt-WillichH. PressW.R. NegishiC. WeinmannH.J. SpeckU. Preclinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the hepatobiliary system.Radiology19921831596410.1148/radiology.183.1.15496951549695
     [Google Scholar]
  27. HopeT.A. FowlerK.J. SirlinC.B. CostaE.A.C. YeeJ. YehB.M. HeikenJ.P. Hepatobiliary agents and their role in LI-RADS.Abdom. Imaging201540361362510.1007/s00261‑014‑0227‑525287679
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LeeN.K. KimS. KimG.H. HeoJ. SeoH.I. KimT.U. KangD.H. Significance of the “Delayed hyperintense portal vein sign” in the hepatobiliary phase MRI obtained with Gd-EOB-DTPA.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging201236367868510.1002/jmri.2370022649000
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056277782231108190618
Loading
The Enhancement of Hepatic Parenchyma and Portal Vein in different CLD Groups: A Comparative Study of Gadoxetic Acid and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine
Curr. Med. Imaging 20, e15734056277782 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056277782231108190618
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056277782231108190618
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056277782231108190618
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): Chronic liver disease; Gadopentetate dimeglumine; Gadoxetic acid; Liver diseases; Liver function test; Magnetic resonance imaging

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test