Korean J Radiol.  2015 Dec;16(6):1207-1215. 10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1207.

Troubleshooting Arterial-Phase MR Images of Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Liver

• Huh J
• Kim SY
• Yeh BM
• Lee SS
• Kim KW
• Wu EH
• Wang ZJ
• Zhao LQ
• Chang WC

• KMID: 2344274
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1207

Abstract

Gadoxetate disodium is a widely used magnetic resonance (MR) contrast agent for liver MR imaging, and it provides both dynamic and hepatobiliary phase images. However, acquiring optimal arterial phase images at liver MR using gadoxetate disodium is more challenging than using conventional extracellular MR contrast agent because of the small volume administered, the gadolinium content of the agent, and the common occurrence of transient severe motion. In this article, we identify the challenges in obtaining high-quality arterial-phase images of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced liver MR imaging and present strategies for optimizing arterial-phase imaging based on the thorough review of recent research in this field.

Keyword

Gadoxetate disodium; Magnetic resonance imaging; Arterial phase; Liver; Transient severe motion

MeSH Terms

Angiography
Arteries/anatomy & histology
Contrast Media/*chemistry
Gadolinium DTPA/*chemistry
Humans
Liver/*radiography
*Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Contrast Media
Gadolinium DTPA

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Simulated contrast enhancement curve of abdominal aorta and liver. Small amount of administered volume and gadolinium content of gadoxetate disodium (red line) can potentially shorten enhancement duration of contrast bolus and decrease magnitude of peak enhancement of contrast bolus compared with favorable contrast bolus curve (green line). This shape of gadoxetate disodium curve (red line) can pose challenges in capturing optimal arterial phase imaging.

• 

  Fig. 2 68-year-old man with respiratory motion artifacts. This arterial phase image of gadoxetate-enhanced liver MR (B) is severely contaminated by respiratory motion artifacts related to TSM, whereas noncontrast (A), portal venous (C), and hepatobiliary (D) phase images look fine. Owing to presence of TSM, arterial hypervascularity of lesion in right lobe of liver (arrows) cannot be exactly evaluated on this MR image, although lesion (arrows) is clearly defined on non-contrast (A), portal venous (C), and hepatobiliary (D) phase images. Lesion was confirmed as HCC after surgery. HCC = hepatocellular carcinoma, TSM = transient severe motion

• 

  Fig. 3 71-year-old man who underwent liver MRI both at 1.5T and 3T in one-week interval. On arterial phase images at 3T (A, B), four more lesions (arrows) as well as large hypervascular tumor (arrowheads) are additionally detected, whereas on 1.5T MR images (C, D), only main lesion (arrowheads) is found. Lesions look more conspicuous on 3T MR images (A, B) than they do 1.5T MR images (C, D). Non-enhanced follow-up CT images (E, F) after transarterial chemoembolization demonstrate lipidol uptakes on four small lesions (arrows) and main lesion (arrowheads).

Reference

1. Kudo M. Will Gd-EOB-MRI change the diagnostic algorithm in hepatocellular carcinoma? Oncology. 2010; 78:Suppl 1. 87–93.

2. Fowler KJ, Brown JJ, Narra VR. Magnetic resonance imaging of focal liver lesions: approach to imaging diagnosis. Hepatology. 2011; 54:2227–2237.

3. Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB. LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology. 2015; 61:1056–1065.

4. Bruix J, Sherman M. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011; 53:1020–1022.

5. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010; 30:52–60.

6. Brismar TB, Dahlstrom N, Edsborg N, Persson A, Smedby O, Albiin N. Liver vessel enhancement by Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA: a comparison in healthy volunteers. Acta Radiol. 2009; 50:709–715.

7. Tamada T, Ito K, Sone T, Yamamoto A, Yoshida K, Kakuba K, et al. 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 Imaging. 2009; 29:636–640.

8. Davenport MS, Viglianti BL, Al-Hawary MM, Caoili EM, Kaza RK, Liu PS, et al. Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality. Radiology. 2013; 266:452–461.

9. Cruite I, Schroeder M, Merkle EM, Sirlin CB. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 2, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the cirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195:29–41.

10. Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195:13–28.

11. Tamada T, Ito K, Yoshida K, Kanki A, Higaki A, Tanimoto D, et al. Comparison of three different injection methods for arterial phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR imaging of the liver. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 80:e284–e288.

12. Vogl TJ, Kümmel S, Hammerstingl R, Schellenbeck M, Schumacher G, Balzer T, et al. Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology. 1996; 200:59–67.

13. 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; 40:715–724.

14. Zech CJ, Vos B, Nordell A, Urich M, Blomqvist L, Breuer J, et al. Vascular enhancement in early dynamic liver MR imaging in an animal model: comparison of two injection regimen and two different doses Gd-EOB-DTPA (gadoxetic acid) with standard Gd-DTPA. Invest Radiol. 2009; 44:305–310.

15. Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology. 2010; 256:32–61.

16. Bae KT. Peak contrast enhancement in CT and MR angiography: when does it occur and why? Pharmacokinetic study in a porcine model. Radiology. 2003; 227:809–816.

17. Tirkes T, Mehta P, Aisen AM, Lall C, Akisik F. Comparison of Dynamic Phase Enhancement of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015; 39:479–482.

18. Kim HJ, Kim BS, Kim MJ, Kim SH, de Campos RO, Hernandes M, et al. Enhancement of the liver and pancreas in the hepatic arterial dominant phase: comparison of hepatocyte-specific MRI contrast agents, gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine, on 3 and 1.5 Tesla MRI in the same patient. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37:903–908.

19. Davenport MS, Caoili EM, Kaza RK, Hussain HK. Matched within-patient cohort study of transient arterial phase respiratory motion-related artifact in MR imaging of the liver: gadoxetate disodium versus gadobenate dimeglumine. Radiology. 2014; 272:123–131.

20. Pietryga JA, Burke LM, Marin D, Jaffe TA, Bashir MR. Respiratory motion artifact affecting hepatic arterial phase imaging with gadoxetate disodium: examination recovery with a multiple arterial phase acquisition. Radiology. 2014; 271:426–434.

21. Kim SY, Park SH, Wu EH, Wang ZJ, Hope TA, Chang WC, et al. Transient respiratory motion artifact during arterial phase MRI with gadoxetate disodium: risk factor analyses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204:1220–1227.

22. Bashir MR, Castelli P, Davenport MS, Larson D, Marin D, Hussain HK, et al. Respiratory motion artifact affecting hepatic arterial phase MR imaging with gadoxetate disodium is more common in patients with a prior episode of arterial phase motion associated with gadoxetate disodium. Radiology. 2015; 274:141–148.

23. Haradome H, Grazioli L, Tsunoo M, Tinti R, Frittoli B, Gambarini S, et al. Can MR fluoroscopic triggering technique and slow rate injection provide appropriate arterial phase images with reducing artifacts on gadoxetic acid-DTPA (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced hepatic MR imaging? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 32:334–340.

24. Chung SH, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Hong HS. Comparison of two different injection rates of gadoxetic acid for arterial phase MRI of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31:365–372.

25. Schmid-Tannwald C, Herrmann K, Oto A, Panteleon A, Reiser M, Zech C. Optimization of the dynamic, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI of the liver: the effect of the injection rate. Acta Radiol. 2012; 53:961–965.

26. Kim SM, Heo SH, Kim JW, Lim HS, Shin SS, Jeong YY, et al. Hepatic arterial phase on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging: a randomized comparison of 0.5 mL/s and 1 mL/s injection rates. Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15:605–612.

27. Bashir MR, Gupta RT, Davenport MS, Allen BC, Jaffe TA, Ho LM, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in a North American population: does hepatobiliary MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA improve sensitivity and confidence for diagnosis? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37:398–406.

28. Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sano K, Sou H, Onohara K, Muhi A, et al. Double-dose gadoxetic Acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with chronic liver disease. Invest Radiol. 2011; 46:141–145.

29. Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H, Sano K, Ichikawa S, Tominaga L, et al. Dilution method of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009; 30:849–854.

30. Park YS, Lee CH, Kim IS, Kiefer B, Woo ST, Kim KA, et al. Usefulness of controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration in gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging to clarify the hepatic arterial phase. Invest Radiol. 2014; 49:183–188.

31. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Watanabe H, Kawada H, Moriyama N, et al. Evaluation of optimal scan delay for gadoxetate disodium-enhanced hepatic arterial phase MRI using MR fluoroscopic triggering and slow injection technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201:578–582.

32. Hussain HK, Londy FJ, Francis IR, Nghiem HV, Weadock WJ, Gebremariam A, et al. Hepatic arterial phase MR imaging with automated bolus-detection three-dimensional fast gradient-recalled-echo sequence: comparison with test-bolus method. Radiology. 2003; 226:558–566.

33. Lee VS, Lavelle MT, Rofsky NM, Laub G, Thomasson DM, Krinsky GA, et al. Hepatic MR imaging with a dynamic contrast-enhanced isotropic volumetric interpolated breathhold examination: feasibility, reproducibility, and technical quality. Radiology. 2000; 215:365–372.

34. Rofsky NM, Lee VS, Laub G, Pollack MA, Krinsky GA, Thomasson D, et al. Abdominal MR imaging with a volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Radiology. 1999; 212:876–884.

35. Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG, Gupta S. Gadolinium contrast agent selection and optimal use for body MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014; 52:637–656.

36. McKenzie CA, Lim D, Ransil BJ, Morrin M, Pedrosa I, Yeh EN, et al. Shortening MR image acquisition time for volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination with a recently developed parallel imaging reconstruction technique: clinical feasibility. Radiology. 2004; 230:589–594.

37. Vogt FM, Antoch G, Hunold P, Maderwald S, Ladd ME, Debatin JF, et al. Parallel acquisition techniques for accelerated volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination magnetic resonance imaging of the upper abdomen: assessment of image quality and lesion conspicuity. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005; 21:376–382.

38. Kim KW, Lee JM, Jeon YS, Kang SE, Baek JH, Han JK, et al. Free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the abdomen and chest using a radial gradient echo sequence with K-space weighted image contrast (KWIC). Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:1352–1360.

39. Fujinaga Y, Ohya A, Tokoro H, Yamada A, Ueda K, Ueda H, et al. Radial volumetric imaging breath-hold examination (VIBE) with k-space weighted image contrast (KWIC) for dynamic gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI of the liver: advantages over Cartesian VIBE in the arterial phase. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24:1290–1299.

40. Budjan J, Ong M, Riffel P, Morelli JN, Michaely HJ, Schoenberg SO, 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; 83:2007–2012.

41. Soher BJ, Dale BM, Merkle EM. A review of MR physics: 3T versus 1.5T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007; 15:277–290. v

42. Boll DT, Merkle EM. Imaging at higher magnetic fields: 3 T versus 1.5 T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010; 18:549–564. xi–xii.

43. Tanimoto A, Higuchi N, Ueno A. Reduction of ringing artifacts in the arterial phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2012; 11:91–97.

44. Seçil M, Obuz F, Altay C, Gencel O, Igğci E, Sagğol O, et al. The role of dynamic subtraction MRI in detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2008; 14:200–204.

45. Yu JS, Kim YH, Rofsky NM. Dynamic subtraction magnetic resonance imaging of cirrhotic liver: assessment of high signal intensity lesions on nonenhanced T1-weighted images. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005; 29:51–58.

46. An C, Park MS, Kim D, Kim YE, Chung WS, Rhee H, et al. Added value of subtraction imaging in detecting arterial enhancement in small (<3 cm) hepatic nodules on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:924–930.