Advertisement

Modified CAIPIRINHA-VIBE without view-sharing on gadoxetic acid–enhanced multi-arterial phase MR imaging for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with the CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE

  • Seung Baek Hong
  • Nam Kyung LeeEmail author
  • Suk Kim
  • Hyeong Il Seo
  • Hyun Sung Kim
  • Dong Uk Kim
  • Tae Un Kim
  • Hwa Seong Ryu
Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Purpose

We evaluated the detection rate and degree of motion artifact of the modified CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (mC-VIBE) without view-sharing and compare them with the CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE (CDT-VIBE) with view-sharing on multi-arterial gadoxetic acid–enhanced liver MRI in the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Material and methods

We retrospectively identified 114 pathological-proven hepatic tumors in 114 patients with risk of HCC who underwent multi-arterial gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI between June 2016 and June 2018. All patients underwent triple arterial phase imaging using the mC-VIBE without view-sharing (54 patients; 49 HCCs and 5 non-HCCs) or the CDT-VIBE with view-sharing (60 patients; 55 HCCs and 5 non-HCCs). We compared the detection rate of two sequences for HCC, with reference to LI-RADS.V.2017. We also compared the mean motion scores and proportions of transient severe motion (TSM) in two sequences.

Result

For the examination using the mC-VIBE, the HCC-detection rate was significantly higher, compared with that using CDT-VIBE (93.9% [46/49] vs 80.0% [44/55], respectively; p = 0.047). For the examination with the mC-VIBE, mean motion scores were significantly lower compared with those of CDT-VIBE for all multi-arterial phases (1.21, 1.19, and 1.15 vs. 1.82, 1.85, and 1.84, respectively; p < 0.001 for all three comparisons). The proportion of TSM in the CDT-VIBE was significantly higher than that in the mC-VIBE (15.0% [9/60] vs 0.0% [0/54], respectively; p = 0.003).

Conclusion

In multi-arterial phase gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI, the mC-VIBE sequence without view-sharing has slightly higher HCC-detection rate and fewer motion artifacts compared with CDT-VIBE with view-sharing.

Key Points

Multi-arterial phase using the mC-VIBE without view-sharing can overcome motion artifacts, resulting in providing optimal arterial phase imaging.

The HCC-detection rate is slightly higher with the mC-VIBE vs. CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE with view-sharing (CDT-VIBE).

View-sharing of CDT-VIBE in the multi-arterial phase is associated with increased frequency of TSM.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Hepatocellular carcinoma Gadoxetic acid Detection Artifact 

Abbreviations

APHE

Arterial phase hyperenhancement

CAIPIRINHA

Controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration factor

CDT-VIBE

CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE

mC-VIBE

Modified CAIPIRINA VIBE

TSM

Transient severe motion

TWIST

Time-resolved angiography with interleaved stochastic trajectories

VIBE

Volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Nam Kyung Lee.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Purysko AS, Remer EM, Coppa CP, Leao Filho HM, Thupili CR, Veniero JC (2012) LI-RADS: a case-based review of the new categorization of liver findings in patients with end-stage liver disease. Radiographics 32:1977–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    An C, Rakhmonova G, Choi JY, Kim MJ (2016) Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) version 2014: understanding and application of the diagnostic algorithm. Clin Mol Hepatol 22:296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen N, Motosugi U, Morisaka H et al (2016) Added value of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatocyte-phase image to the LI-RADS system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 15:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tirkes T, Mehta P, Aisen AM, Lall C, Akisik F (2015) Comparison of dynamic phase enhancement of hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetate disodium vs gadobenate dimeglumine. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:479–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tamada T, Ito K, Yoshida K et al (2011) Comparison of three different injection methods for arterial phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR imaging of the liver. Eur J Radiol 80:e284–e288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zech CJ, Vos B, Nordell A et al (2009) Vascular enhancement in early dynamic liver MR imaging in an animal model: comparison of two injection regimen and two different doses Gd-EOB-DTPA (gadoxetic acid) with standard Gd-DTPA. Invest Radiol 44:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Secil M, Obuz F, Altay C et al (2008) The role of dynamic subtraction MRI in detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Diagn Interv Radiol 14:200–204Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    An C, Park MS, Kim D et al (2013) Added value of subtraction imaging in detecting arterial enhancement in small (<3 cm) hepatic nodules on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 23:924–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fujinaga Y, Ohya A, Tokoro H et al (2014) Radial volumetric imaging breath-hold examination (VIBE) with k-space weighted image contrast (KWIC) for dynamic gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI of the liver: advantages over Cartesian VIBE in the arterial phase. Eur Radiol 24:1290–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pietryga JA, Burke LM, Marin D, Jaffe TA, Bashir MR (2014) Respiratory motion artifact affecting hepatic arterial phase imaging with gadoxetate disodium: examination recovery with a multiple arterial phase acquisition. Radiology 271:426–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riffel P, Attenberger UI, Kannengiesser S et al (2013) Highly accelerated T1-weighted abdominal imaging using 2-dimensional controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration: a comparison with generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions parallel imaging. Invest Radiol 48:554–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu MH, Lee JM, Yoon JH, Kiefer B, Han JK, Choi BI (2013) Clinical application of controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in a higher acceleration (CAIPIRINHA)-volumetric interpolated breathhold (VIBE) sequence for gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:1020–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breuer FA, Blaimer M, Heidemann RM, Mueller MF, Griswold MA, Jakob PM (2005) Controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration (CAIPIRINHA) for multi-slice imaging. Magn Reson Med 53:684–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wile GE, Leyendecker JR (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: sequence optimization and artifacts. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18(525–547):xiGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vogt FM, Antoch G, Hunold P et al (2005) Parallel acquisition techniques for accelerated volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination magnetic resonance imaging of the upper abdomen: assessment of image quality and lesion conspicuity. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:376–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le Y, Kroeker R, Kipfer HD, Lin C (2012) Development and evaluation of TWIST Dixon for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI with improved acquisition efficiency and fat suppression. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michaely HJ, Morelli JN, Budjan J et al (2013) CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT)-volume-interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE): a new technique for fast time-resolved dynamic 3-dimensional imaging of the abdomen with high spatial resolution. Invest Radiol 48:590–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kazmierczak PM, Theisen D, Thierfelder KM et al (2015) Improved detection of hypervascular liver lesions with CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-volume-interpolated breath-hold examination. Invest Radiol 50:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ikram NS, Yee J, Weinstein S et al (2017) Multiple arterial phase MRI of arterial hypervascular hepatic lesions: improved arterial phase capture and lesion enhancement. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:870–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gruber L, Rainer V, Plaikner M, Kremser C, Jaschke W, Henninger B (2018) CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT)-VIBE MR imaging of the liver at 3.0T with gadoxetate disodium: a solution for transient arterial-phase respiratory motion-related artifacts? Eur Radiol 28:2013–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    American College of Radiology (2017) CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2017. American College of Radiology. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/LIRADS/LIRADS_2017_Core.pdf?la=en. Accessed 11 Oct 2017
  24. 24.
    Davenport MS, Viglianti BL, Al-Hawary MM et al (2013) Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality. Radiology 266:452–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lencioni R, Llovet JM (2010) Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 30:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brismar TB, Dahlstrom N, Edsborg N, Persson A, Smedby O, Albiin N (2009) Liver vessel enhancement by Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA: a comparison in healthy volunteers. Acta Radiol 50:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tamada T, Ito K, Sone T et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal solid organ and major vessel: comparison of enhancement effect between Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:636–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Attenberger UI, Haneder S, Morelli JN, Diehl SJ, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ (2010) Peripheral arterial occlusive disease: evaluation of a high spatial and temporal resolution 3-T MR protocol with a low total dose of gadolinium versus conventional angiography. Radiology 257:879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giesel FL, Runge V, Kirchin M et al (2010) Three-dimensional multiphase time-resolved low-dose contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography using TWIST on a 32-channel coil at 3 T: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of a conventional gadolinium chelate with a high-relaxivity agent. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:678–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michaely HJ, Attenberger UI, Dietrich O et al (2008) Feasibility of gadofosveset-enhanced steady-state magnetic resonance angiography of the peripheral vessels at 3 tesla with Dixon fat saturation. Invest Radiol 43:635–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davenport MS, Caoili EM, Kaza RK, Hussain HK (2014) Matched within-patient cohort study of transient arterial phase respiratory motion-related artifact in MR imaging of the liver: gadoxetate disodium versus gadobenate dimeglumine. Radiology 272:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim SY, Park SH, Wu EH et al (2015) Transient respiratory motion artifact during arterial phase MRI with gadoxetate disodium: risk factor analyses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:1220–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Biomedical Research InstitutePusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of MedicineBusanSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Biomedical Research InstitutePusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of MedicineBusanSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, Biomedical Research InstitutePusan National University Yangsan Hospital, and Pusan National University School of MedicineBusanSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Research InstitutePusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of MedicineBusanSouth Korea
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, Biomedical Research InstitutePusan National University Yangsan Hospital, and Pusan National University School of MedicineBusanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations