Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on T1 dependence of the proton density fat fraction using magnetic resonance spectroscopy

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This phantom study assessed the effect of Gd-EOB-DTPA on T1 bias (difference in T1 between water and fat) of the proton density fat fraction when using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Phantoms containing varying fat percentages, without and with Gd-EOB-DTPA (precontrast and postcontrast, respectively), were scanned with repetition times ranging from 1000 to 5000 ms. The relationship between the proton density fat fraction at a reference repetition time of 5000 ms and that using different repetition times, was evaluated in the precontrast and postcontrast phantoms using linear regression and Bland–Altman analyses. In the precontrast phantom, as the repetition time increased, the slope tended to approach one. In the postcontrast phantom, the slope and intercept were near one and zero, respectively. The mean difference was smaller in the postcontrast phantom (range − 0.24 to − 0.01%) than in the precontrast phantom (range 0.12 to 3.52%). We conclude that I1 bias is minimized by Gd-EOB-DTPA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bravo A, Sheth S, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:495–500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Piccinino F, Sagnelli E, Pasquale G, Giusti G. Complications following percutaneous liver biopsy: a multicentre retrospective study on 68,276 biopsies. J Hepatol. 1986;2:165–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Colloredo G, Guido M, Sonzogni A, Leandro G. Impact of liver biopsy size on histological evaluation of chronic viral hepatitis: the smaller the sample, the milder the disease. J Hepatol. 2003;39:239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, et al. Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:1898–906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kühn JP, Hernando D, Mensel B, et al. Quantitative chemical shift-encoded MRI is an accurate method to quantify hepatic steatosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39:1494–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meisamy S, Hines CD, Hamilton G, Sirlin CB, McKenzie CA, Yu H, et al. Quantification of hepatic steatosis with T1-independent, T2-corrected MR imaging with spectral modeling of fat: blinded comparison with MR spectroscopy. Radiology. 2011;258:767–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yokoo T, Shiehmorteza M, Hamilton G, Wolfson T, Schroeder ME, Middleton MS, et al. Estimation of hepatic proton-density fat fraction by using MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology. 2011;258:749–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Pineda N, Sharma P, Xu Q, Hu X, Vos M, Martin DR. Measurement of hepatic lipid: high-speed T2-corrected multiecho acquisition at 1H MR spectroscopy—a rapid and accurate technique. Radiology. 2009;252:568–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bashir MR, Gupta RT, Davenport MS, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higaki A, Ito K, Tamada T, et al. Prognosis of small hepatocellular nodules detected only at the hepatobiliary phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging as hypointensity in cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2476–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, et al. JSH consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2014 update by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Liver Cancer. 2014;3:458–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Park CC, Hamilton G, Desai A, et al. Effect of intravenous gadoxetate disodium and flip angle on hepatic proton density fat fraction estimation with six-echo, gradient-recalled-echo, magnitude-based MR imaging at 3T. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42:1189–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Park YS, Lee CH, Kim JH, et al. Effect of Gd-EOB-DTPA on hepatic fat quantification using high-speed T2-corrected multi-echo acquisition in (1)H MR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;32:886–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hayashi T, Fukuzawa K, Kondo H, et al. Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on proton density fat fraction using the six-echo Dixon method in 3 T magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Phys Technol. 2017;10:483–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kukuk GM, Hittatiya K, Sprinkart AM, et al. Comparison between modified Dixon MRI techniques, MR spectroscopic relaxometry, and different histologic quantification methods in the assessment of hepatic steatosis. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:2869–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Onoda M, Hyodo T, Murakami T, et al. Optimizing signal intensity correction during evaluation of hepatic parenchymal enhancement on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI: comparison of three methods. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:339–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fukuzawa K, Hayashi T, Takahashi J, et al. Evaluation of six-point modified dixon and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for fat quantification: a fat-water-iron phantom study. Radiol Phys Technol. 2017;10:349–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Yokoo T, Collins JM, Hanna RF, Bydder M, Middleton MS, Sirlin CB. Effects of intravenous gadolinium administration and flip angle on the assessment of liver fat signal fraction with opposed-phase and in-phase imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing services. This manuscript was partly supported by Akiyoshi Ohtsuka Fellowship of the Japanese Society of Radiological Technology for improvement in English expression of a draft version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8605, Japan

    Tatsuya Hayashi, Jun’ichi Kotoku & Takahide Okamoto

  2. Department of Radiological Technology, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Kei Fukuzawa

  3. Department of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroshi Kondo, Keiko Toyoda & Hiroshi Oba

  4. Central of Radiology, Teikyo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroshi Onodera, Rie Tojo & Shimpei Yano

  5. Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, Ishikawa, Japan

    Tosiaki Miyati

Authors
  1. Tatsuya Hayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kei Fukuzawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroshi Kondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroshi Onodera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rie Tojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shimpei Yano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tosiaki Miyati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun’ichi Kotoku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takahide Okamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Keiko Toyoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Hiroshi Oba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatsuya Hayashi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent for this study was not required because no research involving human participants was undertaken by any of the authors.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayashi, T., Fukuzawa, K., Kondo, H. et al. Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on T1 dependence of the proton density fat fraction using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Radiol Phys Technol 11, 338–344 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-018-0466-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-018-0466-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation