Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point-of-care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors and editors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

Choose from the list below to learn more about subscriptions for a:

Subscribers log in here

Magnetic resonance imaging of the hepatobiliary tract


Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has rapidly become an important tool in the investigation of patients with hepatobiliary disease, particularly for the characterization and staging of liver lesions seen on other imaging tests. MRI also has a role as a noninvasive means of imaging the biliary tree. (See "Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography".)


MRI uses a strong magnetic field to align rotating hydrogen protons within the tissue being imaged. During realignment of the protons, energy is released and sampled at different time intervals. The measured signal intensity from this energy depends upon the degree and rate of realignment within a very specific time period, which in turn depends upon the water and fat content of the different tissues. These signals are then converted into gray scale cross-sectional images that can be depicted in multiple planes or in three dimensions [1].

The T1 and T2 relaxation times are important parameters determining image and lesion contrast with reference to normal liver parenchyma.

  • The T1 relaxation time (and the resulting T1-weighted image) refers to the time required for protons to fully realign within an external magnetic field following exposure to a radio wave pulse of specific strength and duration
  • The T2 relaxation time (and the resulting T2-weighted image) describes the rate at which protons are put out of phase with respect to adjacent protons

These two measurements affect the signal intensities of tissues being imaged and are therefore crucial for creation of the final images. As an example, water has low signal intensity (dark) on T1-weighted images but high intensity (bright) on T2-weighted images, with the reverse being true for fat. Each tissue in the body has characteristic T1- and T2-weighted signal intensities. In particular, abnormal tissue such as tumor will differ from adjacent normal tissue because of a variety of factors including tissue water content, different contrast enhancement properties, and vascularity [1].


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Mar 2014. | This topic last updated: Jan 25, 2013.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2014 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Johnson CD. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: current clinical applications. Mayo Clin Proc 1993; 68:147.
  2. Siegelman ES, Mitchell DG, Semelka RC. Abdominal iron deposition: metabolism, MR findings, and clinical importance. Radiology 1996; 199:13.
  3. Burrel M, Llovet JM, Ayuso C, et al. MRI angiography is superior to helical CT for detection of HCC prior to liver transplantation: an explant correlation. Hepatology 2003; 38:1034.
  4. Ros PR, Freeny PC, Harms SE, et al. Hepatic MR imaging with ferumoxides: a multicenter clinical trial of the safety and efficacy in the detection of focal hepatic lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:481.
  5. Soyer P. Will ferumoxides-enhanced MR imaging replace CT during arterial portography in the detection of hepatic metastases? Prologue to a promising future. Radiology 1996; 200:610.
  6. Senéterre E, Taourel P, Bouvier Y, et al. Detection of hepatic metastases: ferumoxides-enhanced MR imaging versus unenhanced MR imaging and CT during arterial portography. Radiology 1996; 200:785.
  7. Kuwatsuru R, Brasch RC, Mühler A, et al. Definition of liver tumors in the presence of diffuse liver disease: comparison of findings at MR imaging with positive and negative contrast agents. Radiology 1997; 202:131.
  8. Semelka RC, Helmberger TK. Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 2001; 218:27.
  9. Oi H, Murakami T, Kim T, et al. Dynamic MR imaging and early-phase helical CT for detecting small intrahepatic metastases of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166:369.
  10. Low RN, Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S, et al. Extrahepatic abdominal imaging in patients with malignancy: comparison of MR imaging and helical CT, with subsequent surgical correlation. Radiology 1999; 210:625.
  11. McPherson S, Jonsson JR, Cowin GJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy accurately estimate the severity of steatosis provided the stage of fibrosis is considered. J Hepatol 2009; 51:389.
  12. Vossen JA, Buijs M, Liapi E, et al. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating hepatic hemangioma from other hypervascular liver lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008; 32:750.
  13. Paulson EK. Evaluation of the liver for metastatic disease. Semin Liver Dis 2001; 21:225.
  14. Beavers KL, Semelka RC. MRI evaluation of the liver. Semin Liver Dis 2001; 21:161.
  15. Siegelman ES, Outwater EK. MR imaging techniques of the liver. Radiol Clin North Am 1998; 36:263.
  16. Siegelman ES, Outwater EK. Magnetic resonance imaging of focal and diffuse hepatic disease. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1998; 19:2.
  17. Murakami T, Mochizuki K, Nakamura H. Imaging evaluation of the cirrhotic liver. Semin Liver Dis 2001; 21:213.
  18. Ebara M, Fukuda H, Kojima Y, et al. Small hepatocellular carcinoma: relationship of signal intensity to histopathologic findings and metal content of the tumor and surrounding hepatic parenchyma. Radiology 1999; 210:81.
  19. Ernst O, Sergent G, Bonvarlet P, et al. Hepatic iron overload: diagnosis and quantification with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:1205.
  20. Angelucci E, Giovagnoni A, Valeri G, et al. Limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in measurement of hepatic iron. Blood 1997; 90:4736.
  21. Müller MF, Meyenberger C, Bertschinger P, et al. Pancreatic tumors: evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 190:745.
  22. Bohmig M, Koch I, Lopez-Hanninen E, et al. Diagnostic workup of a pancreatic mass-a prospective single-center study in 193 patients. Gastroenterology 2004; 126:62.