Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differentiating Focal Eosinophilic Infiltration from Metastasis in the Liver with Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  • Lee, Mi-Hee (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Hyun (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Min-Woo (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Won-Jae (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Published : 2011.08.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To determine the most useful findings of gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 Tesla (T) MRI for differentiating focal eosinophilic infiltration (FEI) from hepatic metastasis with verification of their usefulness. Materials and Methods: Pathologically or clinically proven 39 FEIs from 25 patients and 79 hepatic metastases from 51 patients were included in the study. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0T MRI was performed in all cancer patients. Size differences measured between T2-weighted and hepatobiliary-phase images for lesions > 1 cm and morphologic findings (margin, shape, signal intensity on T1- and T2-weighted images, enhancement pattern on dynamic images, and target appearance on hepatobiliary-phase images) were compared between two groups via Student's t test as well as univariate and multivariate analyses. Diagnostic predictive values of two observers for differentiating two groups were assessed before (session 1) and after (session 2) recognition of results. Results: Mean size difference (2.1 mm) in FEIs between the two images was significantly greater than for metastases (0.7 mm) (p < 0.05). An ill-defined margin and isointensity on T1-weighted images were independently significant morphologic findings (p < 0.05) for differentiating the two groups. All observers achieved a higher diagnostic accuracy in session 2 (97% and 98%) than session 1 (92% and 89%) with statistical significance in observer 2 (p < 0.05). All observers had significantly higher sensitivities (95%) and negative predictive values (NPVs) (98%) in session 2 than in session 1 (sensitivity, 74% in two observers; NPV, 89% and 88%) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: With the size change, an ill-defined margin and isointensity on T1-weighted images are the most useful findings for differentiating FEI from hepatic metastasis on gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0T MRI.

Keywords

References

  1. Iwasaki K, Torisu M, Fujimura T. Malignant tumor and eosinophils. I. Prognostic significance in gastric cancer. Cancer 1986;58:1321-1327 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19860915)58:6<1321::AID-CNCR2820580623>3.0.CO;2-O
  2. Kim GB, Kwon JH, Kang DS. Hypereosinophilic syndrome: imaging findings in patients with hepatic involvement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:577-580 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.161.3.8352109
  3. Yoon IL. The eosinophil and gastrointestinal carcinoma. Am J Surg 1959;97:195-200 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(59)90432-5
  4. Soon WH KH, Park CI, Lee SI. Eosinophilic liver abscess in patients with gastric cancer. Korean J Pathol 1993:27-33
  5. Won JH, Kim MJ, Kim BM, Ji H, Chung JJ, Yoo HS, et al. Focal eosinophilic infiltration of the liver: a mimick of hepatic metastasis. Abdom Imaging 1999;24:369-372 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002619900516
  6. Hur J, Park MS, Yu JS, Lim JS, Hong SW, Kim KW. Focal eosinophilic necrosis versus metastasis in the liver: the usefulness of two-phase dynamic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1085-1090 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841085
  7. Jang HJ, Lee WJ, Lee SJ, Kim SH, Lim HK, Lim JH. Focal eosinophilic necrosis of the liver in patients with underlying gastric or colorectal cancer: CT differentiation from metastasis. Korean J Radiol 2002;3:240-244 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2002.3.4.240
  8. Sun JS, Kim JK, Won JH, Lee KM, Cheong JY, Kim YB. MR findings in eosinophilic infiltration of the liver. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005;29:191-194 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rct.0000159106.93063.6b
  9. Yoo SY, Han JK, Kim YH, Kim TK, Choi BI, Han MC. Focal eosinophilic infiltration in the liver: radiologic findings and clinical course. Abdom Imaging 2003;28:326-332 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-002-0050-2
  10. Yu JS, Yoon SW, Park MS, Lee JH, Kim KW. Eosinophilic hepatic necrosis: magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography comparison. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005;29:765-771 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rct.0000182856.75273.dd
  11. Park MS, Kim MJ, Lim JS, Kim SH, Kim HS, Chung YE, et al. Metastasis versus focal eosinophilic infiltration of the liver in patients with extrahepatic abdominal cancer: an evaluation with gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009;33:119-124 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181641b1a
  12. Kim YK, Kim CS, Moon WS, Cho BH, Lee SY, Lee JM. MRI findings of focal eosinophilic liver diseases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1541-1548 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841541
  13. Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A, Bollow M, Taupitz M, Frenzel T, et al. Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 1995;195:785-792
  14. Bartolozzi C, Crocetti L, Lencioni R, Cioni D, Della Pina C, Campani D. Biliary and reticuloendothelial impairment in hepatocarcinogenesis: the diagnostic role of tissue-specific MR contrast media. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2519-2530 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0602-5
  15. Spinazzi A, Lorusso V, Pirovano G, Taroni P, Kirchin M, Davies A. Multihance clinical pharmacology: biodistribution and MR enhancement of the liver. Acad Radiol 1998;5 Suppl 1:S86-89; discussion S93-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80069-X
  16. Jung G, Breuer J, Poll LW, Koch JA, Balzer T, Chang S, et al. Imaging characteristics of hepatocellular carcinoma using the hepatobiliary contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. Acta Radiol 2006;47:15-23 https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850500406795
  17. Halavaara J, Breuer J, Ayuso C, Balzer T, Bellin MF, Blomqvist L, et al. Liver tumor characterization: comparison between liver-specific gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI and biphasic CT--a multicenter trial. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:345-354 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200605000-00001
  18. Bennett BM. On comparisons of sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of a number of diagnostic procedures. Biometrics 1972;28:793-800 https://doi.org/10.2307/2528763
  19. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. The measurement of interrater agreement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981:212-236
  20. Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Goshima S, Kato H, Tsuge U, Hirose Y, et al. Imaging liver metastases: review and update. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:217-228 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.041
  21. Mahfouz AE, Hamm B, Wolf KJ. Peripheral washout: a sign of malignancy on dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR images of focal liver lesions. Radiology 1994;190:49-52
  22. Muramatsu Y, Takayasu K, Moriyama N, Shima Y, Goto H, Ushio K, et al. Peripheral low-density area of hepatic tumors: CTpathologic correlation. Radiology 1986;160:49-52 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.160.1.3012632
  23. Semelka RC, Hussain SM, Marcos HB, Woosley JT. Perilesional enhancement of hepatic metastases: correlation between MR imaging and histopathologic findings-initial observations. Radiology 2000;215:89-94 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00mr2989
  24. Kim YK, Lee JM, Kim CS. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced liver MR imaging: value of dynamic and delayed imaging for the characterization and detection of focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 2004;14:5-13 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2115-1
  25. Gabata T, Matsui O, Kadoya M, Yoshikawa J, Ueda K, Kawamori Y, et al. Delayed MR imaging of the liver: correlation of delayed enhancement of hepatic tumors and pathologic appearance. Abdom Imaging 1998;23:309-313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002619900347
  26. Zech CJ, Herrmann KA, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. MR imaging in patients with suspected liver metastases: value of liverspecific contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. Magn Reson Med Sci 2007;6:43-52 https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.6.43
  27. Danet IM, Semelka RC, Leonardou P, Braga L, Vaidean G, Woosley JT, et al. Spectrum of MRI appearances of untreated metastases of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:809-817 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.3.1810809
  28. Hwang HS, Kim SH, Jeon TY, Choi D, Lee WJ, Lim HK. Hypointense hepatic lesions depicted on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced three-hour delayed hepatobiliaryphase MR imaging: differentiation between benignancy and malignancy. Korean J Radiol 2009;10:294-302 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2009.10.3.294
  29. Terayama N, Matsui O, Ueda K, Kobayashi S, Sanada J, Gabata T, et al. Peritumoral rim enhancement of liver metastasis: hemodynamics observed on single-level dynamic CT during hepatic arteriography and histopathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26:975-980 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200211000-00021

Cited by

  1. Meta-Analysis of Gadoxetic Acid Disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Liver Metastases vol.7, pp.11, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048681
  2. MR Imaging in Patients with Suspected Liver Metastases: Value of Liver-Specific Contrast Agent Gadoxetic Acid vol.14, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.6.894
  3. Chemotherapy-induced Focal Hepatopathy in Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancy: Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced and Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging with Clinical-Pathologic Correlation vol.271, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131810
  4. Rapidly Growing Hepatic Lesion in a Patient With Renal Cell Carcinoma vol.146, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2013.08.005
  5. Feasibility of 5-minute delayed transition phase imaging with 30 flip angle in gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3D gradient-echo MRI of liver, compared with 20-minute delayed hepatocyte phase MRI with standard vol.204, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.13.11903
  6. A Case of Toxocariasis in a Patient with Cecal Cancer Mimicking Hepatic Metastasis vol.89, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3904/kjm.2015.89.6.714
  7. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  8. Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from its various mimickers in liver magnetic resonance imaging: What are the tips when using hepatocyte-specific agents? vol.22, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i1.284
  9. Hepatic Lesions that Mimic Metastasis on Radiological Imaging during Chemotherapy for Gastrointestinal Malignancy: Recent Updates vol.18, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.3.413
  10. Differentiation of hepatic abscess from metastasis on contrast-enhanced dynamic computed tomography in patients with a history of extrahepatic malignancy: emphasis on dynamic change of arterial rim en vol.44, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1766-y
  11. Hypereosinophilia with Hepatic Nodule Formation Caused by Ganoderma lucidum vol.60, pp.24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.7431-21
  12. Differentiating Between an Atypical Hepatic Abscess and Tumor Metastasis Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Hepatobiliary Phase Imaging vol.14, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.2147/idr.s318291
  13. Focal eosinophilic infiltration of the liver, benign or malignant? vol.9, pp.8, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.4448