Hepatic Hemangiomas: Factors Associated with Pseudo Washout Sign on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR Imaging.

PURPOSE: Our study aim was to clarify the characteristics of hemangiomas with pseudo washout sign (PWS) by comparing their features with those of hemangiomas without PWS on gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS: We evaluated the features of hemangiomas on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging of 70 hepatic hemangiomas in 31 patients, investigating the presence of peripheral or central nodular enhancement, diffuse enhancement, and arterioportal shunt during the arterial phase, fill-in enhancement during the portal venous phase, and PWS, which is low signal intensity during the late phase. We visually assessed the intensity of contrast enhancement of the lesion during the arterial, portal venous, late, and hepatobiliary phases using a 4-grade scale and used the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests to compare hemangiomas with and without PWS. RESULTS: We observed PWS in 33 (47%) of 70 hemangiomas, which were significantly smaller than the hemangiomas without PWS (17.4 mm ± 20.3 versus 30.1 mm ± 28.5; P = 0.005); more frequent diffuse enhancement in hemangiomas with PWS than those without (21.2% versus 2.7%; P = 0.026); and no significant differences in nodular enhancement (P = 0.231), arterioportal shunt (P = 0.403), or fill-in enhancement (P = 0.357) between hemangiomas with and without PWS. Visually determined grades of tumor contrast enhancement were significantly lower in hemangiomas with PWS during the portal venous (P = 0.007) and late (P < 0.001) phases. CONCLUSIONS: Small hemangiomas tend to decrease in signal intensity during the portal venous phase and show PWS during the late phase.

Quantitative evaluation of liver function with T1 relaxation time index on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI: comparison with signal intensity-based indices.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the reduction rate of T1 relaxation time of the liver (T1 relaxation time index) before and 20 minutes after gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) injection has the potential to serve as an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based liver function test in comparison with signal intensity-based indices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with suspected liver lesions underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. T1 maps using 3D T1-weighted gradient-echo volumetric interpolated examination with two different flip angles were also performed before and 20 minutes after Gd-EOB-DTPA administration. T1 relaxation time index was compared with four signal intensity-based indices in terms of the ability to discriminate Child-Pugh A (CPA) and Child-Pugh B (CPB) from normal liver function (NLF), and in terms of its correlation with indocyanine green (ICG) clearance. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were classified as NLF, 64 patients were classified as CPA, and 11 were classified as CPB group. The T1 relaxation time index was significantly lower for CPA (0.62 ± 0.08 vs. 0.68 ± 0.07, P = 0.021) and CPB (0.55 ± 0.15 vs. 0.68 ± 0.07, P < 0.001) than for NLF. All signal intensity-based indices showed significant differences only when comparing NLF and CPB. The correlation coefficient with ICG clearance was the highest for T1 relaxation time index (r = -0.605, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The T1 relaxation time index has the potential to serve as an MRI-based liver function test, and is most strongly correlated with ICG clearance among the Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI-based indices investigated.

Contrast-enhanced CT and diffusion-weighted MR imaging: performance as a prognostic factor in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether contrast enhancement of CT and apparent diffusion coefficient on diffusion-weighted MR imaging are important parameters that can predict outcomes for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-two patients with histologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent quadriphasic CT (including unenhanced, pancreatic parenchymal, portal venous and delayed phases) and fat-suppressed single-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T were retrospectively analyzed to investigate prognostic factors. Overall survival curves were drawn using the Kaplan-Meier method. Effects on survival of variables including age, sex, tumor location, tumor size, TNM stage, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen, treatment, tumor contrast enhancement and apparent diffusion coefficient values were analyzed in univariate analysis using the log-rank test. Variables were analyzed in multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: Median survival for the entire patient population was 18.2 months. Higher contrast enhancement during all phases was associated with significantly longer overall survival (P<0.001 for all phases). The difference in overall survival between groups divided by median apparent diffusion coefficient value was not significant (P=0.672). TNM stage (P=0.026) and tumor contrast enhancement on CT (P=0.027) were significantly related to survival in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Poor enhancement of pancreatic adenocarcinomas on enhanced CT is associated with reduced patient survival.

Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging features of hepatic hemangioma compared with enhanced computed tomography.

AIM: To clarify features of hepatic hemangiomas on gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminpentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with enhanced computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Twenty-six patients with 61 hepatic hemangiomas who underwent both Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and enhanced CT were retrospectively reviewed. Hemangioma appearances (presence of peripheral nodular enhancement, central nodular enhancement, diffuse homogenous enhancement, and arterioportal shunt during the arterial phase, fill-in enhancement during the portal venous phase, and prolonged enhancement during the equilibrium phase) on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and enhanced CT were evaluated. The degree of contrast enhancement at the enhancing portion within the hemangioma was visually assessed using a five-point scale during each phase. For quantitative analysis, the tumor-muscle signal intensity ratio (SIR), the liver-muscle SIR, and the attenuation value of the tumor and liver parenchyma were calculated. The McNemar test and the Wilcoxon's signed rank test were used to assess the significance of differences in the appearances of hemangiomas and in the visual grade of tumor contrast enhancement between Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and enhanced CT. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and enhanced CT in the presence of peripheral nodular enhancement (85% vs 82%), central nodular enhancement (3% vs 3%), diffuse enhancement (11% vs 16%), or arterioportal shunt (23% vs 34%) during arterial phase, or fill-in enhancement (79% vs 80%) during portal venous phase. Prolonged enhancement during equilibrium phase was observed less frequently on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI than on enhanced CT (52% vs 100%, P < 0.001). On visual inspection, there was significantly less contrast enhancement of the enhancing portion on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI than on enhanced CT during the arterial (3.94 ± 0.98 vs 4.57 ± 0.64, respectively, P < 0.001), portal venous (3.72 ± 0.82 vs 4.36 ± 0.53, respectively, P < 0.001), and equilibrium phases (2.01 ± 0.95 vs 4.04 ± 0.51, respectively, P < 0.001). In the quantitative analysis, the tumor-muscle SIR and the liver-muscle SIR observed with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI were 0.80 ± 0.24 and 1.28 ± 0.33 precontrast, 1.92 ± 0.58 and 1.57 ± 0.55 during the arterial phase, 1.87 ± 0.44 and 1.73 ± 0.39 during the portal venous phase, 1.63 ± 0.41 and 1.78 ± 0.39 during the equilibrium phase, and 1.10 ± 0.43 and 1.92 ± 0.50 during the hepatobiliary phase, respectively. The attenuation values in the tumor and liver parenchyma observed with enhanced CT were 40.60 ± 8.78 and 53.78 ± 7.37 precontrast, 172.66 ± 73.89 and 92.76 ± 17.92 during the arterial phase, 152.76 ± 35.73 and 120.12 ± 18.02 during the portal venous phase, and 108.74 ± 18.70 and 89.04 ± 7.25 during the equilibrium phase, respectively. Hemangiomas demonstrated peak enhancement during the arterial phase, and both the SIR with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and the attenuation value with enhanced CT decreased with time. The SIR of hemangiomas was lower than that of liver parenchyma during the equilibrium and hepatobiliary phases on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. However, the attenuation of hemangiomas after contrast injection was higher than that of liver parenchyma during all phases of enhanced CT. CONCLUSION: Prolonged enhancement during the equilibrium phase was observed less frequently on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI than enhanced CT, which may exacerbate differentiating between hemangiomas and malignant tumors.

Feasibility of a fixed scan delay technique using a previous bolus tracking technique data for dynamic hepatic CT.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of contrast enhancement and hepatic CT images acquired using bolus tracking technique at two different time points and those acquired with fixed scan delay technique using a previous bolus tracking data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients who underwent 3 different hepatic CT exams (25-s fixed injection of 600 mg iodine (I)/kg or 100mL of 370 mg I/mL nonionic contrast medium) were enrolled. The first and second exams were performed with a bolus tracking technique. The third exam was performed with a fixed scan delay technique using the first exam data. Differences in attenuation values in the abdominal organs were examined and evaluated visually on hepatic arterial phase images. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean 50-HU threshold times between the first and second bolus tracking exams with intra-patient differences between them (1.3±0.9 s). No significant intra-patient differences were noted in organ attenuation and visual evaluation on hepatic arterial phase images between the 3 exams. CONCLUSION: The fixed scan delay technique using a previous bolus tracking data is feasible for hepatic CT exams to follow up hepatocellular carcinoma.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: variability of diffusion-weighted MR imaging findings.

PURPOSE: To compare the apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) of pancreatic adenocarcinomas that appear hyperintense with clearly defined borders (clear hyperintense) with those that do not show clear hyperintense borders on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived. Eighty patients with histologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mean tumor size, 32 mm) underwent fat-suppressed single-shot echo-planar 3.0-T diffusion-weighted MR imaging with diffusion gradients (b = 1000 sec/mm(2)). ADC values of the pancreatic adenocarcinomas (n = 80) and proximal (n = 51) and distal (n = 70) pancreas were compared by using the Friedman test, followed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the difference in serum amylase levels between pancreatic adenocarcinomas with and without clear hyperintensity was evaluated by using the x(2) test. RESULTS: In 38 of 80 patients, pancreatic adenocarcinomas showed clear hyperintensity relative to the surrounding pancreas; 26 were hyperintense with unclear distal borders; 12, isointense; and four, hypointense. In all patients, the mean ADC (± standard deviation) of the tumors (1.16 × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec ± 0.22) was significantly lower than those of the proximal pancreas (1.33 × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec ± 0.16, P < .001) and the distal pancreatic parenchyma (1.24 × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec ± 0.23, P = .004). No significant difference in ADC was seen between the pancreatic adenocarcinomas without clear hyperintensity and the distal pancreas. The frequency of serum amylase levels greater than 120 U/L (2.00 µkat/L) was significantly higher than in those with clear hyperintense pancreatic adenocarcinomas (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Diffusion-weighted MR imaging was not useful for delineating 47% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas, because of hyperintensity of the pancreatic parenchyma distal to the cancer.