Advertisement

MRI for characterization of benign hepatocellular tumors on hepatobiliary phase: the added value of in-phase imaging and lesion-to-liver visual signal intensity ratio

  • P. LebertEmail author
  • M. Adens-Fauquembergue
  • M. Azahaf
  • V. Gnemmi
  • H. Behal
  • A. Luciani
  • O. Ernst
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the lesion-to-liver visual signal intensity ratio (SIR) before and at the hepatobiliary phase MRI (HBP-MRI) after gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) injection, using several T1-weighted images (T1-WI), for the characterization of benign hepatocellular lesions.

Methods

Patients with histologically proven focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatocellular adenoma (HCA), who underwent Gd-BOPTA-enhanced HBP-MRI from 2009 to 2017, were retrospectively identified. The lesion-to-liver SIR was visually assessed by two radiologists on HBP (post-HBP analysis) and compared with that of unenhanced sequences (pre/post-HBP analysis) on T1-WI in-phase (T1-IP), out-of-phase (T1-OP), and fat suppression (T1-FS). Lesions were classified as hyper-, iso-, or hypointense on post-HBP, and as decreasing, stable, or increasing SIR on pre/post-HBP analyses. The performance of the different T1-WI sequences for the diagnostic of FNH was evaluated on post-HBP analysis.

Results

Twenty-nine FNHs and 33 HCAs were analyzed. On post-HBP analysis, FNHs appeared hyper-/isointense in 89.7% of all T1-WI. HCAs appeared hypointense in 93.9%, 63.6%, and 69.7% of T1-IP, T1-OP, and T1-FS, respectively. FNHs exhibited an increasing SIR in 55.2–58.6%, a stable SIR in 44.8–58.6%, and a decreasing SIR in 0%, whereas HCAs exhibited a decreasing SIR in 66.7–93.9%, a stable SIR in 6.1–33.3%, and an increasing SIR in 0% (p < 0.0001). The specificity of T1-IP was significantly higher than that of T1-OP (p = 0.015) and T1-FS (p = 0.042).

Conclusion

T1-IP is the most reliable sequence due to misleading tumor/liver signal ratio in the case of fatty liver when using T1-FS or T1-OP. The pre/post-HBP lesion-to-liver SIR is accurate to classify benign hepatocellular lesions and contributes to avoid biopsy.

Key Points

•The T1-weighted images in-phase should be systematically included in the HBP-MRI protocol, as it is the most reliable sequence especially in the case of fatty liver.

•The comparison between lesion-to-liver signal intensity ratios on unenhanced and at the hepatobiliary phase sequences is useful to classify benign hepatocellular lesions in three categories without misclassification: FNH (increasing signal intensity ratio), HCA (decreasing signal intensity ration), and indeterminate lesions (stable signal intensity ratio).

Keywords

Focal nodular hyperplasia Gadobenate dimeglumine Hepatocellular adenoma Liver Magnetic resonance imaging 

Abbreviations

FNH

Focal nodular hyperplasia

Gd-BOPTA

Gadobenate dimeglumine

Gd-EBO-DTPA

Gadoxetic acid

GRE

Gradient-recalled echo

HCA

Hepatocellular adenoma

HBP

Hepatobiliary phase

HSCAs

Hepatobiliary-specific contrast agents

OATP

Organic anionic transport protein

SIR

Signal intensity ratio

T1-FS

T1-weighted images with fat suppression

T1-IP

T1-weighted images in-phase

T1-OP

T1-weighted image out-of-phase

THRIVE

T1-WI high-resolution isotropic volume examination

VIBE

Volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination

WI

Weighted images

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is O. Ernst.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise (H. Behal).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in: Roux et al (2015) Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma: Role of the quantitative analysis of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 42(5):1249–58.

Methodology

• Retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at two institutions

References

  1. 1.
    Vilgrain V (2006) Focal nodular hyperplasia. Eur J Radiol 58:236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bioulac-Sage P, Laumonier H, Rullier A et al (2009) Over-expression of glutamine synthetase in focal nodular hyperplasia: a novel easy diagnostic tool in surgical pathology. Liver Int 29:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laumonier H, Bioulac-Sage P, Laurent C, Zucman-Rossi J, Balabaud C, Trillaud H (2008) Hepatocellular adenomas: magnetic resonance imaging features as a function of molecular pathological classification. Hepatology 48:808–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Aalten SM, Thomeer MG, Terkivatan T et al (2011) Hepatocellular adenomas: correlation of MR imaging findings with pathologic subtype classification. Radiology 261:172–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomeer MG, Willemssen FE, Biermann KK et al (2014) MRI features of inflammatory hepatocellular adenomas on hepatocyte phase imaging with liver-specific contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:1259–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bieze M, van den Esschert JW, Nio CY et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in differentiating hepatocellular adenoma from focal nodular hyperplasia: prospective study of the additional value of gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Kessel CS, de Boer E, ten Kate FJ, Brosens LA, Veldhuis WB, van Leeuwen MS (2013) Focal nodular hyperplasia: hepatobiliary enhancement patterns on gadoxetic-acid contrast-enhanced MRI. Abdom Imaging 38:490–501Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver (2016) EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of benign liver tumours. J Hepatol 65:386–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ronot M, Vilgrain V (2014) Imaging of benign hepatocellular lesions: current concepts and recent updates. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 38:681–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neri E, Bali MA, Ba-Ssalamah A et al (2016) ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. Eur Radiol 26:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merkle EM, Zech CJ, Bartolozzi C et al (2016) Consensus report from the 7th international forum for liver magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 26:674–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grazioli L, Morana G, Kirchin MA, Schneider G (2005) Accurate differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma at gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging: prospective study. Radiology 236:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferlicot S, Kobeiter H, van Nhieu JT et al (2004) MRI of atypical focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: radiology-pathology correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:1227–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khanna M, Ramanathan S, Fasih N, Schieda N, Virmani V, McInnes MDF (2015) Current updates on the molecular genetics and magnetic resonance imaging of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma. Insights Imaging 6:347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suh CH, Kim KW, Park SH et al (2018) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the diagnostic strategies for differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma. Eur Radiol 28:214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grieser C, Steffen IG, Kramme IB et al (2014) Gadoxetic acid enhanced MRI for differentiation of FNH and HCA: a single centre experience. Eur Radiol 24:1339–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tselikas L, Pigneur F, Roux M et al (2017) Impact of hepatobiliary phase liver MRI versus contrast-enhanced ultrasound after an inconclusive extracellular gadolinium-based contrast-enhanced MRI for the diagnosis of benign hepatocellular tumors. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:825–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pirovano G, Vanzulli A, Marti-Bonmati L et al (2000) Evaluation of the accuracy of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in the detection and characterization of focal liver lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:1111–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zech CJ, Grazioli L, Breuer J, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2008) Diagnostic performance and description of morphological features of focal nodular hyperplasia in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: results of a multicenter trial. Invest Radiol 43:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McInnes MD, Hibbert RM, Inacio JR, Schieda N (2015) Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma: accuracy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging--a systematic review. Radiology 277:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suh CH, Kim KW, Kim GY, Shin YM, Kim PN, Park SH (2015) The diagnostic value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI for the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 25:950–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roux M, Pigneur F, Calderaro J et al (2015) Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma: role of the quantitative analysis of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1249–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goodwin MD, Dobson JE, Sirlin CB, Lim BG, Stella DL (2011) Diagnostic challenges and pitfalls in MR imaging with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. Radiographics 31:1547–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gupta RT, Iseman CM, Leyendecker JR, Shyknevsky I, Merkle EM, Taouli B (2012) Diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia with MRI: multicenter retrospective study comparing gadobenate dimeglumine to gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Agarwal S, Fuentes-Orrego JM, Arnason T et al (2014) Inflammatory hepatocellular adenomas can mimic focal nodular hyperplasia on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W408–W414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Donato H, França M, Candelária I, Caseiro-Alves F (2017) Liver MRI: from basic protocol to advanced techniques. Eur J Radiol 93:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) (2016) EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol 64(6):1388–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bioulac-Sage P, Balabaud C, Wanless I (2010) Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma. In: Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (eds) WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. IARC, Lyon, pp 198–204Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grazioli L, Bondioni MP, Haradome H et al (2012) Hepatocellular adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia: value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging in differential diagnosis. Radiology 262:520–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yoneda N, Matsui O, Kitao A et al (2012) Beta-catenin-activated hepatocellular adenoma showing hyperintensity on hepatobiliary-phase gadoxetic-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and overexpression of OATP8. Jpn J Radiol 30:777–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nault JC, Couchy G, Balabaud C et al (2017) Molecular classification of hepatocellular adenoma associates with risk factors, bleeding, and malignant transformation. Gastroenterology 152:880–894.e886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reizine E, Amaddeo G, Pigneur F et al (2018) Quantitative correlation between uptake of Gd-BOPTA on hepatobiliary phase and tumor molecular features in patients with benign hepatocellular lesions. Eur Radiol 28:4243–4253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Laumonier H, Frulio N, Laurent C, Balabaud C, Zucman-Rossi J, Bioulac-Sage P (2010) Focal nodular hyperplasia with major sinusoidal dilatation: a misleading entity. BMJ Case Rep 2010:bcr0920103311Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tse JR, Naini BV, Lu DS, Raman SS (2016) Qualitative and quantitative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging helps subtype hepatocellular adenomas. Radiology 279:118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fujiwara H, Sekine S, Onaya H, Shimada K, Mikata R, Arai Y (2011) Ring-like enhancement of focal nodular hyperplasia with hepatobiliary-phase Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: radiological-pathological correlation. Jpn J Radiol 29:739–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Narita M, Hatano E, Arizono S et al (2009) Expression of OATP1B3 determines uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol 44:793–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dekkers IA, Roos R, van der Molen AJ (2018) Gadolinium retention after administration of contrast agents based on linear chelators and the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Eur Radiol 28:1579–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Runge VM (2017) Critical questions regarding gadolinium deposition in the brain and body after injections of the gadolinium-based contrast agents, safety, and clinical recommendations in consideration of the EMA’s pharmacovigilance and risk assessment committee recommendation for suspension of the marketing authorizations for 4 linear agents. Invest Radiol 52:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roux M, Pigneur F, Baranes L et al (2018) Differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma: is hepatobiliary phase MRI (HBP-MRI) using linear gadolinium chelates always useful? Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:1670–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastrointestinal ImagingLille University HospitalLille CedexFrance
  2. 2.Department of PathologyLille University HospitalLille CedexFrance
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsLille University HospitalLille CedexFrance
  4. 4.Groupe Henri Mondor Albert Chenevier, Imagerie Medicale, AP-HPCreteilFrance

Personalised recommendations