Evaluation of concanavalin a-induced acute liver injury in rats using an empirical mathematical model and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA

Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 53-60

  Moriyama, Yuki ^a   Saito, Shigeyoshi ^a   Kobayashi, Shuichiro ^a   Ogihara, Ryota ^a   Koto, Daichi ^a   Kitamura, Akihiro ^a   Matsushita, Taro ^a   Nishiura, Motoko ^a   Murase, Kenya ^a  

^a OSAKA UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Acute liver injury; Concanavalin A induced liver injury; DCE MRI; Empirical mathematical model; Gd EOB DTPA

Indexed keywords

CONCANAVALIN A; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; GADOXETIC ACID;

ACUTE LUNG INJURY; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE MODEL; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MALE; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; RAT; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WISTAR RAT;

ACUTE LUNG INJURY; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONCANAVALIN A; CONTRAST MEDIA; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RATS; RATS, WISTAR; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84863796622     PISSN: 13473182     EISSN: 18802206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2463/mrms.11.53     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Tuňón MJ, Alvarez M, Culebras JM, Gonzaález-Gallego J. An overview of animal models for investigating the pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies in acute hepatic failure. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15:3086-3098.
2. Rahman TM, Hodgson HJ. Animal models of acute hepatic failure. Int J Exp Path 2000; 81:145- 157.
3. Tiegs G, Hentschel J, Wendel A. A T-cell-dependent experimental liver injury in mice inducible by concanavalin A. J Clin Invest 1992; 90:196-203.
4. Mizuhara H, O'Neill E, Seki N, et al. T cell activation-associated hepatic injury: mediation by tumor necrosis factors and protection by interleu-kin 6. J Exp Med 1994; 179:1529-1537.
5. Ba-Ssalamah A, UŠmann M, Saini S, Bastani N, Herold C, Schima W. Clinical value of MRI liver-specific contrast agents: a tailored examination for a confident non-invasive diagnosis of focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 2009; 19:342-357.
6. Weinmann HJ, Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Schmitt-Willich H, Vogler H, Frenzel T, Gries H. A new lipophilic gadolinium chelate as a tissue-specific contrast medium for MRI. Magn Reson Med 1991; 22: 233-237.
7. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE, et al. Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 1997; 7:275-280.
8. Tsuda N, Okada M, Murakami T. Potential of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) for differential diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and fatty liver in rats using magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2007; 42: 242-247.
9. Murase K, Miyazaki S, Yang X. An efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters in a dual-input single-compartment model. Br J Radiol 2007; 80:371-375.
10. Fan X, Medved M, River JN, et al. New model for analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data distinguishes metastatic from nonmetastatic transplanted rodent prostate tumors. Magn Reson Med 2004; 51:487-494.
11. Fan X, Medved M, Karczmar GS, et al. Diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions using an empirical mathematical model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imag 2007; 25:593-603.
12. Oto A, Fan X, Mustafi D, et al. Quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI for assessment of bowel inflammation in Crohn's disease pilot study. Acad Radiol 2009; 16:1223-1230.
13. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flan-nery BP. Numerical recipes in C: the art of scien-tific computing, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992.
14. Medved M, Karczmar G, Yang C, et al. Semiquan-titative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in cancer patients: variability and changes in tumor tissue over time. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20:122-128.
15. van Montfoort JE, Stieger B, Meijer DK, Wein-mann HJ, Meier PJ, Fattinger KE. Hepatic uptake of the magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent gadoxetate by the organic anion transporting poly-peptide OATP1. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999; 290:153-157.
16. Libra A, Fernetti C, Lorusso V, et al. Molecular determinants in the transport of a bile acid-derived diagnostic agent in tumoral and nontumoral cell lines of human liver. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2006; 319:809-817.
17. Tsuda N, Okada M, Murakami T. New proposal for the staging of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: evaluation of liver fibrosis on Gd-EOB-DTPA-en-hanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 2010; 73:137-142.
18. Geier A, Dietrich CG, Voigt S, et al. EFfects of proinflammatory cytokines on rat organic anion transporters during toxic liver injury and chole-stasis. Hepatology 2003; 38:345-354.
19. Guardigli M, Marangi M, Casanova S, Grigioni WF, Roda E, Roda A. Chemiluminescence quantitative immunohistochemical determination of MRP2 in liver biopsies. J Histochem Cytochem 2005; 53:1451-1457.
20. Oshima H, Kon J, Ooe H, Hirata K, Mitaka T. Functional expression of organic anion transporters in hepatic organoids reconstructed by rat small hepatocytes. J Cell Biochem 2008; 104:68-81.
21. Tsuda N, Matsui O. Cirrhotic rat liver: reference to transporter activity and morphologic changes in bile canaliculi-gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010; 256:767-773.
22. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of a diffusible tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10:223-232.
23. Brix G, Semmler W, Port R, Schad LR, Layer G, Lorenz WJ. Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991; 15:621-628.
24. Hayton P, Brady M, Tarassenko L, Moore N. Analysis of dynamic MR breast images using a model of contrast enhancement. Med Image Anal 1997; 1:207-224.