European Journal of Radiology
Volume 62, Issue 2 , Pages 186-191 , May 2007

Dynamic and delayed contrast enhancement in upper abdominal MRI studies: Comparison of gadoxetic acid and gadobutrol

  • Jan Žižka

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charles University Hospital, Sokolská 581, CZ-500 05 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +420 495 833 930; fax: +420 495 832 036.
    • ,
  • Ludovít Klzo

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charles University Hospital, Sokolská 581, CZ-500 05 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
    • ,
  • Jiří Ferda

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charles University Hospital, Alej Svobody 80, CZ-306 40 Plzeň, Czech Republic
    • ,
  • Milan Mrklovský

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology and Imaging Centre Pardubice, Regional Hospital, Kyjevská 44, CZ-530 01 Pardubice, Czech Republic
    • ,
  • Josef Bukač

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biophysics, Medical Faculty, Charles University, Šimkova 870, CZ-500 38 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

Received 9 January 2007 ,Accepted 27 February 2007.

References 

  1. Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R, et al. Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology. 1996;200(1):59–67
  2. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE, et al. Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(2):275–280
  3. Petersein J, Spinazzi A, Giovagnoni A, et al. Focal liver lesions: evaluation of the efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine in MR imaging: a multicenter phase III clinical study. Radiology. 2000;215(3):727–736
  4. Oudkerk M, Torres CG, Song B, et al. Characterization of liver lesions with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR imaging: multicenter study comparing MR and dual-phase spiral CT. Radiology. 2002;223(2):517–524
  5. Schneider G, Maas R, Schultze Kool L, et al. Low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus standard dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: an intra-individual crossover comparison. Invest Radiol. 2003;38(2):85–94
  6. Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A, et al. Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology. 2004;230(1):266–275
  7. Scharitzer M, Schima W, Schober E, et al. Characterization of hepatocellular tumors: value of mangafodipir-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29(2):181–190
  8. Bluemke DA, Sahani D, Amendola M, et al. Efficacy and safety of MR imaging with liver-specific contrast agent: U.S. multicenter phase III study. Radiology. 2005;237(1):89–98
  9. Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A, et al. Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT-initial observations. Radiology. 2005;234(2):468–478
  10. Kuwatsuru R, Kadoya M, Ohtomo K, et al. Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadopentetate dimeglumine for magnetic resonance imaging of liver tumors. Invest Radiol. 2001;36(11):632–641
  11. Grazioli L, Morana G, Federle MP, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: morphologic and functional information from MR imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine. Radiology. 2001;221(3):731–739
  12. Von Tengg-Kobligk H, Floemer F, Knopp MV. Multiphasic MR angiography as an intra-individual comparison between the contrast agents Gd-DTPA, Gd-BOPTA, and Gd-BT-DO3A. Radiology. 2003;43(2):171–178
  13. Herborn CU, Lauenstein TC, Ruehm SG, Bosk S, Debatin JF, Goyen M. Intraindividual comparison of gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadobenate dimeglumine, and gadobutrol for pelvic 3D magnetic resonance angiography. Invest Radiol. 2003;38(1):27–33
  14. Reimer P, Schneider G, Schima W. Hepatobiliary contrast agents for contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver: properties, clinical development and applications. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(4):559–578
  15. Yoshikawa K, Inoue Y, Shimada M. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography in rats with hepatobiliary contrast agents. Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;22(7):937–942
  16. Clement O, Muhler A, Vexler VS, et al. Comparison of Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of liver tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3(1):71–77
  17. Marchal G, Zhang X, Ni Y, Van Hecke P, Yu J, Baert AL. Comparison between Gd-DTPA, Gd-EOB-DTPA, and Mn-DPDP in induced HCC in rats: a correlation study of MR imaging, microangiogrpahy, and histology. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11(5):665–674
  18. Runge VM. A comparison of two MR hepatobiliary gadolinium chelates: Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(4):643–650
  19. Stern W, Schick F, Kopp AF, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of liver metastases with Gd-EOB-DTPA. Acta Radiol. 2000;41(3):255–262
  20. King LJ, Burkill GJ, Scurr ED, Vlavianos P, Murray-Lyons I, Healy JC. MnDPDP enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of focal liver lesions. Clin Radiol. 2002;57(12):1047–1057
  21. Stroszczynski C, Gaffke G, Gnauck M, Streitparth F, Wieners G, Lopez-Hänninen E. Current status of MRI diagnostics with liver-specific contrast agents Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA. Radiologe. 2004;44(12):1185–1191
  22. Semelka RC, Helmberger TK. Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver. Radiology. 2001;218(1):27–38
  23. Vosshenrich R, Engeroff B, Obenauer S, Grabbe E. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the arterial and portovenous system of the liver with varying concentrations of contrast medium. RoFo. 2003;175(9):1239–1243

PII: S0720-048X(07)00113-1

doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.035

European Journal of Radiology
Volume 62, Issue 2 , Pages 186-191 , May 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution