MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid
MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid
MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid
MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid
Journal Article

MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid

2022
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
The routine use of dynamic-contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the liver using hepatocyte-specific contrast agent (HSCA) as the standard of care for the study of focal liver lesions is not widely accepted and opponents invoke the risk of a loss in near 100% specificity of extracellular contrast agents (ECA) and the need for prospective head-to-head comparative studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of both contrast agents. The Purpose of this prospective intraindividual study was to conduct a quantitative and qualitative head-to-head comparison of DCE-MRI using HSCA and ECA in patients with liver cirrhosis and HCC. Twenty-three patients with liver cirrhosis and proven HCC underwent two 3 T-MR examinations, one with ECA (gadoteric acid) and the other with HSCA (gadoxetic acid). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), wash-in, wash-out, image quality, artifacts, lesion conspicuity, and major imaging features of LI-RADS v2018 were evaluated. Wash-in and wash-out were significantly stronger with ECA compared to HSCA (P < 0.001 and 0.006, respectively). During the late arterial phase (LAP), CNR was significantly lower with ECA (P = 0.005), while SNR did not differ significantly (P = 0.39). In qualitative analysis, ECA produced a better overall image quality during the portal venous phase (PVP) and delayed phase (DP) compared to HSCA (P = 0.041 and 0.008), showed less artifacts in the LAP and PVP (P = 0.003 and 0.034) and a higher lesion conspicuity in the LAP and PVP (P = 0.004 and 0.037). There was no significant difference in overall image quality during the LAP (P = 1), in artifacts and lesion conspicuity during the DP (P = 0.078 and 0.073) or in the frequency of the three major LI-RADS v2018 imaging features. In conclusion, ECA provides superior contrast of HCC—especially hypervascular HCC lesions—in DCE-MR in terms of better perceptibility of early enhancement and a stronger washout.