A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Hepatic hemangiomas: difference in enhancement pattern on 3T MR imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadoxetate disodium. | LitMetric

Purpose: To compare intraindividual differences in enhancement pattern of hepatic hemangiomas between gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) and gadoxetate disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced 3T MR imaging.

Materials And Methods: This is a HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study with waiver for informed consent granted. From 10/07 to 5/09, 10 patients (2 males, 8 females; mean age, 57.3 years) with 15 hepatic hemangiomas (mean diameter, 4.4 ± 5.6 cm) underwent both Gd-BOPTA- and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3T MR imaging (mean interval, 266 days; range, 38-462 days). Diagnosis of hemangioma was based on strict imaging criteria. MR imaging was obtained during three arterial, portal venous, and up to four delayed phases. During each phase, hemangioma-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured for each lesion on both examinations. Statistical analysis was performed using paired Student's t-test.

Results: Hemangioma-to-liver CNR peaked during the portal venous phase (Gd-BOPTA: 48.9 ± 65.8, Gd-EOB-DTPA: 0.7 ± 3.8). During all imaging phases except the first arterial phase, hemangioma-to-liver CNR was significantly lower on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced compared to Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR images (p<0.05). Notably, Gd-EOB-DTPA yielded negative hemangioma-to-liver CNR (-2.5 ± 2.4) compared to Gd-BOPTA (40.7 ± 56.4) during the first delayed phase (7-8 min after contrast administration), remaining negative for the rest of the delayed phases (up to 26 min after contrast administration).

Conclusion: The enhancement patterns of hepatic hemangiomas differs significantly between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3T MR imaging. The smaller dose, shorter plasma half-life, and increased hepatobiliary uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA leads to a negative CNR of hemangioma-to-liver on delayed phases and could create an imaging pitfall with this agent.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.10.014DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hepatic hemangiomas
12
enhancement pattern
8
gadobenate dimeglumine
8
gadoxetate disodium
8
portal venous
8
phase hemangioma-to-liver
8
hemangioma-to-liver cnr
8
imaging
5
hemangiomas difference
4
difference enhancement
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!