Abdominal Organ Enhancement in Dynamic MRI using 1 M Gadobutrol vs 0.5 M Meglumine Gadoterate in Liver of Hemangioma Patients

Author(s): Kazuhiro Saito*, Yoichi Araki, Reiji Kokubo, Chishio Kurata, Yukari Wakabayashi, Kunihito Suzuki

Journal Name: Current Medical Imaging
Formerly: Current Medical Imaging Reviews

Volume 17 , Issue 5 , 2021


Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Background: The utility of gadobutrol (GAD) which is higher r1 value contrast media for evaluating abdominal solid organ have not been fully evaluated.

Objective: To compare the contrast enhancement of abdominal organs on dynamic MRI using 0.1 mmol/kg 1.0 M GAD or 0.5 M meglumine gadoterate (MG) in patients with a liver hemangioma.

Methods: A phantom study was performed at different concentrations (0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, 5.0 and 10 mmol/L) of GAD and MG. Sixty-two patients with a liver hemangioma were enrolled. Contrast media was injected at a rate of 2 mL/s followed by 40 mL of saline. Two arterial phases, a portal phase and an equilibrium phase were obtained. One certified radiologist set regions of interest on the abdominal aorta, liver, pancreas, spleen and the liver hemangioma. The relative enhancement ratio (RER) was calculated.

Results: In the phantom study the signal intensity of both contrast media was similar at lower concentrations. However, the signal intensity of MG was higher at concentrations of more than 5.0 mmol/L. In the clinical study the RER of the abdominal viscera during the portal and equilibrium phases was higher with GAD. The hemangioma had a higher equilibrium phase enhancement with GAD. The aortic RER was equivalent during all phases and the liver RER during the 2nd arterial phase was higher with GAD. The arterial phase during GAD imaging might have been measured later than was optimal.

Conclusion: When the same injection protocol was used for an abdominal dynamic MRI, arterial phase imaging was late when GAD was used. The higher T1 relaxation value was significantly higher in the abdominal viscera during the portal and equilibrium phases, while the liver hemangioma also had significantly higher contrast enhancement during the equilibrium phase. Clinical trial registration number: 3186.

Keywords: Abdomen, contrast media, hepatobiliary imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, arterial phase, liver hemangioma.

[1]
Tombach B, Heindel W. Value of 1.0- M gadolinium chelates: review of preclinical and clinical data on gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 2002; 12(6): 1550-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-001-1242-9] [PMID: 12042967]
[2]
Hadizadeh DR, Jost G, Pietsch H, et al. Intraindividual quantitative and qualitative comparison of gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol in time-resolved contrast-enhanced 4-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography in minipigs. Invest Radiol 2014; 49(7): 457-64.
[PMID: 24598442]
[3]
Fink C, Puderbach M, Ley S, et al. Intraindividual comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine for time-resolved contrast-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography of the upper torso. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22(2): 286-90.
[PMID: 16028246]
[4]
Hadizadeh DR, Von Falkenhausen M, Kukuk GM, et al. Contrast material for abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography with parallel imaging: intraindividual equimolar comparison of a macrocyclic 1.0 M gadolinium chelate and a linear ionic 0.5 M gadolinium chelate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194(3): 821-9.
[PMID: 20173166]
[5]
Zizka J, Klzo L, Ferda J, Mrklovský M, Bukac J. Dynamic and delayed contrast enhancement in upper abdominal MRI studies: Comparison of gadoxetic acid and gadobutrol. Eur J Radiol 2007; 62(2): 186-91.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.035] [PMID: 17367974]
[6]
Budjan J, Ong M, Riffel P, et al. CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT)-volume-interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) for dynamic liver imaging: Comparison of gadoterate meglumine, gadobutrol and gadoxetic acid. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83(11): 2007-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.08.003] [PMID: 25172427]
[7]
Kim MJ, Kim SH, Kim HJ, Kim BS, Hernandes M, Semelka RC. 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 Imaging 2013; 38(1): 102-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23934] [PMID: 23677890]
[8]
Hammerstingl R, Adam G, Ayuso JR, et al. Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in five hundred seventy-two patients with known or suspected liver lesions: Results of a multicenter, double-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase-III trial. Invest Radiol 2009; 44(3): 168-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e318198a0ae] [PMID: 19169143]
[9]
Fallenberg EM, Renz DM, Karle B, et al. Intraindividual, randomized comparison of the macrocyclic contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine in breast magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2015; 25(3): 837-49.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3426-0] [PMID: 25249313]
[10]
Renz DM, Durmus T, Böttcher J, et al. Comparison of gadoteric acid and gadobutrol for detection as well as morphologic and dynamic characterization of lesions on breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2014; 49(7): 474-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000039] [PMID: 24637587]
[11]
Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005; 40(11): 715-24.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000184756.66360.d3] [PMID: 16230904]
[12]
Jang HJ, Kim TK, Lim HK, et al. Hepatic hemangioma: Atypical appearances on CT, MR imaging, and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180(1): 135-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.1.1800135] [PMID: 12490492]
[13]
Kim T, Federle MP, Baron RL, Peterson MS, Kawamori Y. Discrimination of small hepatic hemangiomas from hypervascular malignant tumors smaller than 3 cm with three-phase helical CT. Radiology 2001; 219(3): 699-706.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn45699] [PMID: 11376257]
[14]
Caseiro-Alves F, Brito J, Araujo AE, et al. Liver haemangioma: Common and uncommon findings and how to improve the differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol 2007; 17(6): 1544-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0503-z] [PMID: 17260159]
[15]
Liu X, Li Z, Zhang W, et al. Gadobutrol precedes Gd-DTPA in abdominal contrast-enhanced MRA and MRI: A prospective, multicenter, intraindividual study. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2019; 2019: 9738464.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/9738464] [PMID: 31866800]
[16]
Johansson L, Kirchin MA, Ahlström H. Gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in MR angiography: An in-vitro phantom comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist) at different concentrations. Acta Radiol 2012; 53(10): 1112-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.120181] [PMID: 23081961]
[17]
de Bazelaire C, Rofsky NM, Duhamel G, et al. Combined T2* and T1 measurements for improved perfusion and permeability studies in high field using dynamic contrast enhancement. Eur Radiol 2006; 16(9): 2083-91.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0198-1] [PMID: 16583215]
[18]
Noda Y, Goshima S, Namimoto T, et al. Simultaneous acquisition of MR angiography and diagnostic images of abdomen at view-sharing multiarterial phases and comparing the effect of two different contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 48(1): 102-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25925] [PMID: 29247585]
[19]
Ryoo I, Lee JM, Chung YE, et al. Gadobutrol-enhanced, three-dimensional, dynamic MR imaging with MR cholangiography for the preoperative evaluation of bile duct cancer. Invest Radiol 2010; 45(4): 217-24.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181d2eeb1] [PMID: 20195160]


open access plus

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 17
ISSUE: 5
Year: 2021
Published on: 09 November, 2020
Page: [662 - 668]
Pages: 7
DOI: 10.2174/1573405616999201109215827

Article Metrics

PDF: 51