These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of Visualization Rates of LI-RADS Version 2014 Major Features With IV Gadobenate Dimeglumine or Gadoxetate Disodium in Patients at Risk for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
    Author: Allen BC, Ho LM, Jaffe TA, Miller CM, Mazurowski MA, Bashir MR.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jun; 210(6):1266-1272. PubMed ID: 29629800.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare visualization rates of the major features covered by Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2014 in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma using either gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoxetate disodium IV contrast agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included liver MRI examinations performed with either gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoxetate disodium contrast enhancement. Using age, sex, underlying liver disease, and presence of cirrhosis, patients were placed into matched cohorts. All hepatic nodules 1 cm or larger (up to five per subject) were included, resulting in 63 subjects with 130 nodules (median nodule size, 1.9 cm) imaged with gadobenate and 64 subjects with 117 nodules (median nodule size, 2.0 cm) imaged with gadoxetate. Three radiologists reviewed the studies for LI-RADS major features independently. Bootstrap resampling with 10,000 repetitions was used to compare feature detection rates. RESULTS: Arterial phase hyperenhancement was seen in a similar number of nodules with gadobenate dimeglumine (mean, 91.5% [119/130]) and gadoxetate disodium (mean, 88.0% [103/117]) (p = 0.173). Dynamic phase washout was more commonly seen with gadobenate dimeglumine (mean, 60.2% [78.3/130]) than with gadoxetate disodium (mean, 45.3% [53/117]) (p = 0.006). The capsule feature was more often visualized with gadobenate dimeglumine (mean, 50.2% [65.3/130]) than with gadoxetate disodium (mean, 33.3% [39/117]) (p < 0.001). Interreader agreement for arterial phase enhancement and dynamic phase washout was almost perfect for both contrast agents (κ > 0.83). Agreement for the capsule feature was moderate for gadobenate dimeglumine (κ = 0.52) and substantial for gadoxetate disodium (κ = 0.67). CONCLUSION: The rates of visualization of arterial phase hyperenhancement are similar in studies performed with gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium, but dynamic phase washout and capsule appearance are more commonly visualized with gadobenate dimeglumine.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]