[Evaluation of clinical safety and diagnostic efficacy of domestic liver-specific magnetic resonance contrast agent (gadoxetate disodium)]
T Yang,Z Ye,S Yao,Y Li,B Song
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20210411-00178
2023-02-20
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the clinical safety and diagnostic efficacy of domestic gadoxetate disodium (GdEOBDTPA). Methods: The imaging data from patients with space-occupying liver lesions who underwent GdEOBDTPA enhanced magnetic resonance examination at West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 2020 and September 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical indicators were evaluated by the incidental condition of transient severe respiratory motion artifacts (TSM) in the arterial phase to assess the safety profile.The differences in quantitative and qualitative indicators for the risk factors of TSM in the arterial phase between the TSM group and the non-TSM group were compared by t-test and χ2 test. Observational indicators of the accuracy of diagnostic procedures: The 2018 version of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was used to evaluate the main signs, auxiliary signs, and LR grades of lesions. Postoperative pathological findings were used as the gold standard for evaluating and diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Simultaneously, the relative enhancement degree of the liver, the contrast between the lesion and the liver, and the cholangiography in the hepatobiliary phase were evaluated. The McNemar test was used to compare the differences in the diagnostic efficiency of physician 1 and physician 2 in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma according to the 2018 version of LI-RADS. Results: A total of 114 cases were included in this study. The incidence rate of TSM was 9.6% (11/114). Age [(53.8 ± 11.3) years vs. (55.4 ± 15.4) years, t = 0.465, P = 0.497], body weight [(65.8 ± 11.1) kg vs. (60.8 ± 7.6) kg, t = 1.468, P = 0.228], body mass index [(23.9 ± 3.1) kg/m(2) vs. (23.4 ± 3.0) kg/m(2), t = 0.171, P = 0.680], liver cirrhosis ratio (39 cases vs. 4 cases, χ (2) =1.776, P = 0.183), proportion of mild to moderate pleural effusion (32 cases vs. 4 cases, χ (2) = 0.000, P = 0.986), and proportion of mild to moderate ascites (47 cases vs. 5 cases χ (2) = 0.000, P = 0.991) had no statistically significant difference between the groups of non-TSM and TSM patients. According to the 2018 version of LI-RADS for the LR5 category, there was no statistically significant difference between the two physicians' HCC diagnoses in terms of sensitivity (91.4% vs.86.4%, χ (2) = 1.500, P = 0.219), specificity (72.7 % vs. 69.7%, χ (2) = 0.000, P = 1.000), positive predictive value (89.2% vs. 87.5%, χ (2) = 2.250, P = 0.125), negative predictive value (77.4% vs. 67.6%, χ (2) = 2.250, P = 0.125), and accuracy (86.0% vs. 81.6%, χ (2) = 0.131, P = 0.125). According to physicians 1 and 2 film review results, 91.2% (104/114) and 89.5% (102/114) of the contrast agent were discharged into the common bile duct or duodenum, respectively. In addition, 86.0% (98/114) of the patients had good liver enhancement, and 91.2% (104/114) of the lesions showed low signals relative to the liver background. Conclusion: Domestic gadoxetate disodium has a good clinical safety profile and diagnostic efficacy.