Hepatobiliary MRI Contrast Agent: Pattern Recognition Approach to Focal Hepatic Lesions & Comparison with Ultrasound Findings

Authors

  • Pratik Pravinbhai Rathod Senior Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Government Medical College Baroda, India Author
  • Chetan Mehta Professor & Head, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Government Medical College Baroda, India Author
  • Kirti Bhavin Agrawal Associate Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Government Medical College Baroda, India Author

Keywords:

Hepatic lesions; Magnetic resonance imaging; Gadobenate dimeglumine; Ultrasonography; Hepatobiliary contrast agent

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate detection and characterization of focal hepatic lesions are essential for appropriate clinical management. Ultrasonography (USG) is commonly used as an initial investigation; however, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), particularly with hepatobiliary-specific contrast agents, provides superior soft-tissue characterization and functional information.

Aim & Objective: This study evaluated the diagnostic utility of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced multiparametric MRI in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions and compared its findings with USG and histopathology.

Material & Methods: Forty patients with focal hepatic lesions detected on USG were included. Patients with contraindications to MRI, pregnancy, clinical instability, or severe claustrophobia were excluded. Lesion morphology, location, size, enhancement pattern, and diffusion characteristics were assessed on MRI and compared with USG and histopathological findings. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

Results: Among 40 patients, 26 (65%) were male and 14 (35%) female, with a mean age of 48.28 ± 12.39 years. MRI demonstrated 20 (50%) hypervascular and 20 (50%) hypovascular lesions, while true diffusion restriction was observed in 27 (67.5%). Metastases were the most common lesions (47.5%), followed by haemangiomas (17.5%) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (12.5%). MRI correctly characterized 38 lesions compared with 28 on USG. MRI demonstrated sensitivity of 97.14%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 99.30%, compared with 65.71%, 100%, 100%, and 92.10%, respectively, for USG.

Conclusion: Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced multiparametric MRI demonstrated high diagnostic performance in the detection and characterization of focal hepatic lesions and showed greater sensitivity and negative predictive value than USG. Its dynamic and hepatobiliary imaging capabilities provide valuable information for differentiating benign, malignant, and infective hepatic lesions.

REFERENCES

  1. Semelka MR. Imaging of benign and malignant focal liver lesions: MR versus CT. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2001;9(4):785-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1064-9689(21)00274-9
  2. Grazioli L, Morana G, Kirchin MA, Schneider G. Accurate differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma at gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging: prospective study. Radiology. 2005;236(1):166-177. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2361040338
  3. Van Beers BE, Pastor CM, Hussain HK. Primovist, Eovist: what to expect? J Hepatol. 2012;57(2):421-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2012.01.031
  4. Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A, Breuer J, Giovagnoni A, Heinz-Peer G, et al. Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology. 2004;230(1):266-275. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2301020269
  5. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE, et al. Clinical results with SHU 555A: an organ-specific contrast agent for liver MRI. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(2):222-226.
  6. Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A, et al. Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary contrast agent for MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;195(1):139-149. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.195.3.7754011
  7. Bartolozzi C, Cioni D, Donati F, Lencioni R. Focal liver lesions: MR imaging-pathologic correlation. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(8):1374-1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300100845
  8. Tchelepi H, Ralls PW, Radin R, Grant E. Sonography of diffuse liver disease. J Ultrasound Med. 2002;21(9):1023-1032. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2002.21.9.1023
  9. Karcaaltincaba M, Akhan O. CT and MRI of hepatic vascular tumours. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007;13(2):68-74.
  10. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009;47(1):27-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006
  11. Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Fishman EK. Three-dimensional imaging of the liver: principles and clinical applications. Radiographics. 1995;15(4):877-890.
  12. Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics. 2009;29(6):1725-1748. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.296095515
  13. Quillin SP, Atilla S, Brown JJ, Borrello JA, Yu CY, Pilgram TK. Characterization of focal hepatic masses by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: findings in 311 lesions. Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;15(3):275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0730-725x(96)00226-3
  14. Mortele KJ, Ros PR. Cystic focal liver lesions in the adult: differential CT and MR imaging features. Radiographics. 2001;21(4):895-910. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.4.g01jl16895
  15. Maurea S, Mainenti PP, Tambasco A, Imbriaco M, Mollica C, Laccetti E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging to identify and characterize focal liver lesions: comparison between gadolinium and superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast media. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014;4(3):181-189. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-22-74
  16. Kim YK, Kim CS, Han YM, Park G, Hwang SB, Yu HC. Comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MRI for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(5):358-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.11.012
  17. Chander R, Ohri P, Neki NS. Characterization of hepatobiliary masses: a comparative study of ultrasound versus computed tomography. 2019:1-6.
  18. Kotnis S, Nagaraj RH, Rajanna Brahma PJ. Role of MRI in evaluation of focal liver lesions: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2021;15(1):7-20. https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2021/47185.14451
  19. Lin DJ, Alaia EF, Rossi IM, Zember J, Rosenberg ZS. Anteroposterior radiograph of the ankle with cross-sectional imaging correlation. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2019;27(4):701-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2019.07.001
  20. Kirchin MA, Pirovano GP, Spinazzi A. Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA): an overview. Invest Radiol. 1998;33(11):798-809. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199811000-00003
  21. Spinazzi A, Lorusso V, Pirovano G, Kirchin M. Safety, tolerance, biodistribution, and MR imaging enhancement of the liver with gadobenate dimeglumine: results of clinical pharmacologic and pilot imaging studies in nonpatient and patient volunteers. Acad Radiol. 1999;6:282-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(99)80451-6
  22. Aime S, Calabi L, Crich SG, et al. Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(6):1257-1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21969

 

Downloads

Published

2026-10-16

Issue

Vol. 3 No. Issue 1 (2026)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Hepatobiliary MRI Contrast Agent: Pattern Recognition Approach to Focal Hepatic Lesions & Comparison with Ultrasound Findings. (2026). Journal of Surgical Research and Reviews (ISSN: 3041-4857) , 3(Issue 1), 1-7. https://internationalmedicalpublishing.com/index.php/JSRR/article/view/352