Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Functional hepatobiliary MR imaging in children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Clinical application efforts for the hepatocyte-specific MRI contrast agent gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) have mainly been directed toward detection and characterization of various hepatic masses in the adult population.

Objective

Here we report our initial experience with Gd-EOB-DTPA for evaluating congenital and acquired hepatobiliary pathologies in the pediatric population.

Materials and methods

Twenty-one consecutive children receiving Gd-EOB-DTPA for functional hepatobiliary evaluation at our institution were retrospectively identified with IRB approval. The use of Gd-EOB-DTPA was classified in each case as definite, potential, or no clinical utility, focusing on the clinical value gained beyond traditional noncontrast fluid-sensitive MR cholangiopancreatography (FS-MRCP) and other imaging modalities.

Results

Definite added value of Gd-EOB-DTPA was found in 12 patients, with potential value in 4 patients, and no value in 5 patients. Benefit was seen in cases of iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic biliary strictures, perihepatic fluid collections for biliary leak, hepatobiliary dysfunction in the absence of hyperbilirubinemia, and in the functional exclusion of cystic duct occlusion that can be seen in acute cholecystitis.

Conclusion

This is the first reported series of children with Gd-EOB-DTPA and this early work suggests potential pediatric applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chavhan GB, Roberts E, Moineddin R et al (2008) Primary sclerosing cholangitis in children: utility of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Pediatr Radiol 38:868–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chavhan GB, Babyn PS, Manson D et al (2008) Pediatric MR cholangiopancreatography: principles, technique, and clinical applications. Radiographics 28:1951–1962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chung SH, Kim MJ, Choi JY et al (2010) Comparison of two different injection rates of gadoxetic acid for arterial phase MRI of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:365–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee NK, Kim S, Lee JW et al (2009) Biliary MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and its clinical applications. Radiographics 29:1707–1724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Doo KW, Lee CH, Choi JW et al (2009) ‘Pseudo washout’ sign in high-flow hepatic hemangioma on gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI mimicking hypervascular tumor. AJR 193:W490–W496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim SH, Lee J, Kim MJ et al (2009) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI versus triple-phase MDCT for the preoperative detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR 192:1675–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Gupta RT et al (2010) Hepatobiliary transit times of gadoxetate disodium (Primovist[R]) for protocol optimization of comprehensive MR imaging of the biliary system—what is normal? Eur J Radiol In press

  8. Aduna M, Larena JA, Martin D et al (2005) Bile duct leaks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: value of contrast-enhanced MRCP. Abdom Imaging 30:480–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sheppard D, Allan L, Martin P et al (2004) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography using mangafodipir compared with standard T2W MRC sequences: a pictorial essay. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:256–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahn SS, Kim MJ, Lim JS et al (2010) Added value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MR imaging in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 255:459–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Frericks BB, Loddenkemper C, Huppertz A et al (2009) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhotic liver enhancement using Gd-EOB-DTPA. AJR 193:1053–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim YK, Kwak HS, Kim CS et al (2009) Detection and characterization of focal hepatic tumors: a comparison of T2-weighted MR images before and after the administration of gadoxectic acid. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:437–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raman SS, Leary C, Bluemke DA et al (2010) Improved characterization of focal liver lesions with liver-specific gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter phase 3 clinical trial. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:163–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ringe KI, Gupta RT, Brady CM et al (2010) Respiratory-triggered three-dimensional T2-weighted MR cholangiography after injection of gadoxetate disodium: is it still reliable? Radiology 255:451–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sun HY, Lee JM, Shin CI et al (2010) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating small hepatocellular carcinomas (< or = 2 cm in diameter) from arterial enhancing pseudolesions: special emphasis on hepatobiliary phase imaging. Invest Radiol 45:96–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zech CJ, Grazioli L, Breuer J et al (2008) Diagnostic performance and description of morphological features of focal nodular hyperplasia in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: results of a multicenter trial. Invest Radiol 43:504–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nadel HR (1996) Hepatobiliary scintigraphy in children. Semin Nucl Med 26:25–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Norton KI, Glass RB, Kogan D et al (2002) MR cholangiography in the evaluation of neonatal cholestasis: initial results. Radiology 222:687–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ziessman HA (2003) Acute cholecystitis, biliary obstruction, and biliary leakage. Semin Nucl Med 33:279–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cruite I, Schroeder M, Merkle EM et al (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 2, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the cirrhotic liver. AJR 195:29–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thurley PD, Dhingsa R (2008) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: postoperative imaging. AJR 191:794–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK et al (1996) Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 110:589–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Soto JA, Yucel EK, Barish MA et al (1996) MR cholangiopancreatography after unsuccessful or incomplete ERCP. Radiology 199:91–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pavone P, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (1997) MR cholangiography in the examination of patients with biliary-enteric anastomoses. AJR 169:807–811

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenwald RA, Pereiras R Jr, Morris SJ et al (1978) Jaundice, choledocholithiasis, and a nondilated common duct. JAMA 240:1983–1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Muhletaler CA, Gerlock AJ Jr, Fleischer AC et al (1980) Diagnosis of obstructive jaundice with nondilated bile ducts. AJR 134:1149–1152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fayad LM, Kamel IR, Mitchell DG et al (2005) Functional MR cholangiography: diagnosis of functional abnormalities of the gallbladder and biliary tree. AJR 184:1563–1571

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hottat N, Winant C, Metens T et al (2005) MR cholangiography with manganese dipyridoxyl diphosphate in the evaluation of biliary-enteric anastomoses: preliminary experience. AJR 184:1556–1562

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Papanikolaou N, Prassopoulos P, Eracleous E et al (2001) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography versus heavily T2-weighted magnetic resonance cholangiography. Invest Radiol 36:682–686

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, 725 Welch Road, Room 1679, Stanford, CA, 94305–5913, USA

    Anobel Tamrazi & Shreyas S. Vasanawala

Authors
  1. Anobel Tamrazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shreyas S. Vasanawala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shreyas S. Vasanawala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tamrazi, A., Vasanawala, S.S. Functional hepatobiliary MR imaging in children. Pediatr Radiol 41, 1250–1258 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2086-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2086-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation