Dual contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver with superparamagnetic iron oxide followed by gadolinium for lesion detection and characterization
Dual contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver with superparamagnetic iron oxide followed by gadolinium for lesion detection and characterization
复制标题
DOI:
10.1053/crad.2000.0673
复制
发表时间:
2001-05-01
影响因子:
2.6
通讯作者:
Halpern, E
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Kubaska, S;Sahani, DV;Halpern, E
AIM: Iron oxide contrast agents are useful for lesion detection, and extracellular gadolinium chelates are advocated for lesion characterization. We undertook a study to determine if dual contrast enhanced liver imaging with sequential use of ferumoxides particles and gadolinium (Gd)-DTPA can be performed in the same imaging protocol.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients underwent dual contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRT) of the liver for evaluation of known/suspected focal lesions which included, metastases (n = 5), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; n = 3), cholangiocharcinoma (n = 1) and focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH; n = 3). Pre- and post-iron oxide T1-weighted gradient recalled echo (GRE) and T2-weighted fast spin echo (FSE) sequences were obtained, followed by post-Gd-DTPA (0.1 mmol/kg) multi-phase dynamic T1-weighted out-of-phase GRE imaging. Images were analysed in a blinded fashion by three experts using a three-point scoring system for lesion conspicuity on pre- and post-iron oxide T1 images as well as for reader's confidence in characterizing liver lesions on post Gd-DTPA T1 images.RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in lesion conspicuity was observed on pre- and post-iron oxide T1-GRE images in this small study cohort. The presence of iron oxide did not appreciably diminish image quality of post-gadolinium sequences and did not prevent characterization of liver lesions.CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that characterization of focal liver lesion with Gd-enhanced liver MRI is still possible following iron oxide enhanced imaging. Radiology, 56, 410-415 (C) 2001 The Royal College of Radiology.