Liver-specific contrast agents

Koh, Dow‐Mu

doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2012.9022

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…50 Ironoxide nanoparticles of this size localise in the liver via phagocytosis into the Kupffer cells and malignant liver legions often lack normal Kupffer cells and remain "bright" in an MRI scan upon SPION administration. 51,52 However, the lower MRI sensitivity means that differentiation between regions with and without SPION may be challenging and may limit widespread clinical utility. Clinical utility could be increased by using PET radioisotope labelled SPIONs such as those developed in this study due to the increased sensitivity of PET and subsequent clarity of low uptake regions.…”

Section: In Vivo Imaging Biodistribution and Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Chelator free gallium-68 radiolabelling of silica coated iron oxide nanorods via surface interactions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The commercial availability of combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/positron emission tomography (PET) scanners for clinical use has increased demand for easily prepared agents which offer signal or contrast in both modalities. Herein we describe a new class of silica coated iron-oxide nanorods (NRs) coated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and/or a tetraazamacrocyclic chelator (DO3A). Studies of the coated NRs validate their composition and confirm their properties as in vivo T2 MRI contrast agents. Radiolabelling studies with the positron emitting radioisotope gallium-68 (t1/2 = 68 min) demonstrate that, in the presence of the silica coating, the macrocyclic chelator was not required for preparation of highly stable radiometal-NR constructs. In vivo PET-CT and MR imaging studies show the expected high liver uptake of gallium-68 radiolabelled nanorods with no significant release of gallium-68 metal ions, validating our innovation to provide a novel simple method for labelling of iron oxide NRs with a radiometal in the absence of a chelating unit that can be used for high sensitivity liver imaging.

show abstract

Section: In Vivo Imaging Biodistribution and Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Chelator free gallium-68 radiolabelling of silica coated iron oxide nanorods via surface interactions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our retrospective study showed that gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI identified additional lesions in the evaluation of liver metastasis as previously reported. 17 However, our study challenges the clinical value of using these liver specific contrast agents in all patients in the preoperative setting. In fact, our results show that patients with a unique and large hepatic lesion on the standard MRI did not have their surgical management altered by the addition of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Additional value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI to conventional extracellular gadolinium-enhanced MRI for the surgical management of colorectal and neuroendocrine liver metastases

Morin

Drolet

Daigle

et al. 2020

HPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Liver resection being the only potentially curative treatment for patients with liver metastasis, it is critical to select the appropriate preoperative imaging modality. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI compared to a conventional extracellular gadolinium-enhanced MRI on the surgical management of colorectal and neuroendocrine liver metastasis.Methods: We included 110 patients who underwent both a gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (hepatospecific contrast) and conventional extracellular gadolinium for the evaluation of colorectal or neuroendocrine liver metastases, from January 2012 to December 2015 at the CHU de Québec -Université Laval. When the number of lesions differed, a hepatobiliary surgeon evaluated if the gadoxetic acidenhanced MRI modified the surgical management.Results: Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI found new lesions in 25 patients (22.7%), excluded lesions in 18 patients (16.4%) and identified the same number in 67 patients (60.9%). The addition of the gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI directly altered the surgical management in 19 patients overall (17.3% (95% CI [10.73-25.65])). Conclusion:Despite the additional cost associated with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI compared to conventional extracellular gadolinium-enhanced MRI, the use of this contrast agent has a significant impact on the surgical management of patients with liver metastases.

show abstract

“…These molecules present a biphasic enhancement pattern; the first phase, immediately after intravenous injection, is similar to CT dynamic enhancement after iodine contrast injection while a delayed phase occurs after 10 to 120 min after injection[ 10 , 11 ]. Lesions not containing hepatocytes cannot take up such molecules; therefore, metastasis appear hypointense compared with surrounding healthy liver parenchyma[ 12 ].…”

Section: Magnetic Resonance Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Magnetic Resonance Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hepatobiliary-reticuloendothelial phases are T1W sequences, with or without fat-sat, if Gd-BOPTA or Gd-EOB-DTPA, both increasing T1 relaxivity, have been administered[ 12 , 19 ]. Proton density or T2W sequences are used with SPIOs contrast agents[ 12 , 19 ]. For Gd-BOPTA, hepatobiliary phase (HBP) imaging is recommended after 90-120 min, thus requiring the patient to return to the scanner for final T1W imaging of the liver and bile ducts[ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Magnetic Resonance Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Liver metastases: The role of magnetic resonance imaging

Maino,

Vernuccio,

Cannella

et al. 2023

World J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The liver is one of the organs most commonly involved in metastatic disease, especially due to its unique vascularization. It’s well known that liver metastases represent the most common hepatic malignant tumors. From a practical point of view, it’s of utmost importance to evaluate the presence of liver metastases when staging oncologic patients, to select the best treatment possible, and finally to predict the overall prognosis. In the past few years, imaging techniques have gained a central role in identifying liver metastases, thanks to ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All these techniques, especially CT and MRI, can be considered the non-invasive reference standard techniques for the assessment of liver involvement by metastases. On the other hand, the liver can be affected by different focal lesions, sometimes benign, and sometimes malignant. On these bases, radiologists should face the differential diagnosis between benign and secondary lesions to correctly allocate patients to the best management. Considering the above-mentioned principles, it’s extremely important to underline and refresh the broad spectrum of liver metastases features that can occur in everyday clinical practice. This review aims to summarize the most common imaging features of liver metastases, with a special focus on typical and atypical appearance, by using MRI.

show abstract

Liver-specific contrast agents

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Chelator free gallium-68 radiolabelling of silica coated iron oxide nanorods via surface interactions

Chelator free gallium-68 radiolabelling of silica coated iron oxide nanorods via surface interactions

Additional value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI to conventional extracellular gadolinium-enhanced MRI for the surgical management of colorectal and neuroendocrine liver metastases

Liver metastases: The role of magnetic resonance imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About