4.2 Article

Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadoxetic Acid Dose for Liver MRI in Normal Volunteers

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 60-72

出版社

JPN SOC MAGNETIC RESONANCE MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2463/mrms.2015-0005

关键词

gadoxetic acid; liver; magnetic resonance imaging; relaxometry; spectroscopy

资金

  1. Department of Radiology of the University of Wisconsin
  2. GE Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We performed a quantitative intraindividual comparison of the performance of 0.025- and 0.05-mmol/kg doses for gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods: Eleven healthy volunteers underwent liver MR imaging twice, once with a 0.025- and once with a 0.05-mmol/kg dose of gadoxetic acid. MR spectroscopy and 3-dimensional gradient-echo T-1-weighted images (3D-GRE) were obtained before and 3, 10, and 20 mm after injection of the contrast medium to measure T-1 and T-2 values and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) performance. During the dynamic phase, highly time-resolved 3D-GRE was used to estimate the relative CNR (CNRrel) of the hepatic artery and portal vein (PV) to the liver. We used paired t-tests to compare the results of different doses. Results: During the hepatobiliary phase, we observed shorter T-1 values and higher SNRs of the liver (P < 0.001) and higher liver-to-PV and liver-to-muscle CNRs (P < 0.002) using 0.05 mmol/kg compared to 0.025 mmol/kg. Increasing the dose to 0.05 mmol/kg yielded a greater T-1-shortening effect at 10 mm delay even compared with 0.025 mmol/kg at 20 mm (P < 0.001). During the dynamic phase, the peak CNRrel for the hepatic artery and portal vein were higher using 0.05 mmol/kg (P = 0.007 to 0.035). Conclusion: Use of gadoxetic acid at a dose of 0.05 mmol/kg leads to significantly higher SNR and CNR performance than with 0.025 mmol/kg. Quantitatively, a 10-min delay may be feasible for hepatobiliary-phase imaging when using 0.05 mmol/kg of gadoxetic acid.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据