4.4 Article

Dual contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver with superparamagnetic iron oxide followed by gadolinium for lesion detection and characterization

期刊

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
卷 56, 期 5, 页码 410-415

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1053/crad.2000.0673

关键词

iron oxide; gadolinium; liver; MRI; signal intensity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.4
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