Advertisement

Hepatocellular carcinoma detection in liver cirrhosis: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast vs. gadoxetic acid

  • Sahar Semaan
  • Naik Vietti Violi
  • Sara Lewis
  • Manjil Chatterji
  • Christopher Song
  • Cecilia Besa
  • James S. Babb
  • M. Isabel Fiel
  • Myron Schwartz
  • Swan Thung
  • Claude B. Sirlin
  • Bachir TaouliEmail author
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) vs. MRI with gadoxetic acid (EOB-MRI) for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis using liver explant as the reference. The additional value of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) post Gadoxetic acid was also assessed.

Methods

Two-hundred seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent liver transplantation over a 9 year period and imaging within 90 days of were retrospectively included. Imaging consisted in CT (n = 100), EC-MRI (n = 77) and EOB-MRI (n = 100), the latter subdivided into dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI (dynamic+HBP). Three radiologists retrospectively categorized lesions ≥ 1 cm using the LI-RADSv2017 algorithm. Dynamic EOB-MRI was re-evaluated with the addition of HBP. Results were correlated with explant pathology.

Results

Pathology demonstrated 265 HCCs (mean size 2.1 ± 1.4 cm) in 177 patients. Per-patient sensitivities were 86.3% for CT, 89.5% for EC-MRI, 92.8% for dynamic EOB-MRI and 95.2% for full EOB-MRI (pooled reader data), with a significant difference between CT and dynamic/full EOB-MRI (p = 0.032/0.002), and between EC-MRI and full EOB-MRI (p = 0.047). Per-lesion sensitivities for CT, EC-MRI, dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI were 59.5%,78.5%,69.7% and 76.8%, respectively, with a significant difference between MRI groups and CT (p-range:0.001–0.04), and no difference between EC-MRI and dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.949). For HCCs 1–1.9 cm, sensitivities were 34.4%, 64.6%, 57.3% and 67.3%, respectively, with all MRI groups significantly superior to CT (p ≤ 0.01) and full EOB-MRI superior to dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

EOB-MRI outperforms CT and EC-MRI for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity. MRI methods outperform CT for detection of HCCs 1–1.9 cm.

Key points

• MRI is superior to CT for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis.

• EOB-MRI outperforms CT and MRI using extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity.

• The addition of hepatobiliary phase images improves HCC detection when using gadoxetic acid.

Keywords

Liver neoplasms Magnetic resonance imaging Contrast media Tomography, spiral computed 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

EC-MRI

Extracellular gadolinium based contrast-enhanced MRI

EOB-MRI

Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI

FP

False positive

GBCAs

Gadolinium based contrast agents

HBP

Hepatobiliary phase

LI-RADS

Liver imaging reporting and data system

NPV

Negative predictive value

PPV

Positive predictive value

TN

True negative

TP

True positive

UNOS

United network for organ sharing

Notes

Funding information

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

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Bachir Taouli.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies:

Bachir Taouli: Grant, Bayer Healthcare.

The other 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 (JS Babb) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective.

• case-control study.

• performed at one institution.

Supplementary material

330_2019_6458_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, Hussain HK, Pomfret EA, Bruix J (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 266:376–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB (2014) CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: part II. Extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features. Radiology 273:30–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo J, Seo Y, Ren S et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:1960–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park MS, Kim S, Patel J et al (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with diffusion-weighted versus contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pretransplant patients. Hepatology 56:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi SH, Lee JM, Yu NC et al (2008) Hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplantation candidates: detection with gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baek CK, Choi JY, Kim KA et al (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: a comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and multiphasic MDCT. Clin Radiol 67:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Martino M, Marin D, Guerrisi A et al (2010) Intraindividual comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and 64-section multidetector CT in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Radiology 256:806–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Martino M, De Filippis G, De Santis A et al (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: prospective comparison of US, CT and MR imaging. Eur Radiol 23:887–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Libbrecht L, Bielen D, Verslype C et al (2002) Focal lesions in cirrhotic explant livers: pathological evaluation and accuracy of pretransplantation imaging examinations. Liver Transpl 8:749–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Junqiang L, Yinzhong W, Li Z et al (2014) Gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOBDTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:1079–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Akai H, Kiryu S, Matsuda I et al (2011) Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma by Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver MRI: comparison with triple phase 64 detector row helical CT. Eur J Radiol 80:310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ichikawa T, Saito K, Yoshioka N et al (2010) Detection and characterization of focal liver lesions: a Japanese phase III, multicenter comparison between gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography predominantly in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease. Invest Radiol 45:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park MJ, Kim YK, Lee MW et al (2012) Small hepatocellular carcinomas: improved sensitivity by combining gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging patterns. Radiology 264:761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hwang J, Kim YK, Kim JM, Lee WJ, Choi D, Hong SS (2014) Pretransplant diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma by gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Liver Transpl 20:1436–1446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cortis K, Liotta R, Miraglia R, Caruso S, Tuzzolino F, Luca A (2016) Incorporating the hepatobiliary phase of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: increasing the sensitivity without compromising specificity. Acta Radiol 57:923–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luca A, Caruso S, Milazzo M et al (2010) Multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic candidates for liver transplantation: prevalence of radiological vascular patterns and histological correlation with liver explants. Eur Radiol 20:898–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maetani YS, Ueda M, Haga H et al (2008) Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients undergoing living-donor liver transplantation. Accuracy of multidetector computed tomography by viewing images on digital monitors. Intervirology 51(Suppl 1):46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Becker-Weidman DJ, Kalb B, Sharma P et al (2011) Hepatocellular carcinoma lesion characterization: single-institution clinical performance review of multiphase gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging--comparison to prior same-center results after MR systems improvements. Radiology 261:824–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lauenstein TC, Salman K, Morreira R et al (2007) Gadolinium-enhanced MRI for tumor surveillance before liver transplantation: center-based experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:663–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orlacchio A, Chegai F, Fabiano S et al (2016) Role of MRI with hepatospecific contrast agent in the identification and characterization of focal liver lesions: pathological correlation in explanted livers. Radiol Med 121:588–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee DH, Lee JM, Baek JH, Shin CI, Han JK, Choi BI (2015) Diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging in the detection of HCCs and allocation of transplant recipients on the basis of the Milan criteria and UNOS guidelines: correlation with histopathologic findings. Radiology 274:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bartolozzi C, Battaglia V, Bargellini I et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of 102 nodules in cirrhosis: correlation with histological findings on explanted livers. Abdom Imaging 38:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burrel M, Llovet JM, Ayuso C et al (2003) MRI angiography is superior to helical CT for detection of HCC prior to liver transplantation: an explant correlation. Hepatology 38:1034–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Besa C, Kakite S, Cooper N, Facciuto M, Taouli B (2015) Comparison of gadoxetic acid and gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI for HCC detection: prospective crossover study at 3 T. Acta Radiol Open 4:2047981614561285PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ahn SS, Kim MJ, Lim JS, Hong HS, Chung YE, Choi JY (2010) Added value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MR imaging in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 255:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK et al (2018) Prospective Intraindividual comparison of MRI with Gadoxetic acid and extracellular contrast for diagnosis of HCCs using LI-RADS. Hepatology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver (2018) EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 69:182–236Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Roberts LR, Sirlin CB, Zaiem F et al (2018) Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 67:401–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davenport MS, Viglianti BL, Al-Hawary MM et al (2013) Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality. Radiology 266:452–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tanimoto A, Higuchi N, Ueno A (2012) Reduction of ringing artifacts in the arterial phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 11:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cruite I, Schroeder M, Merkle EM, Sirlin CB (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 2, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the cirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kitao A, Zen Y, Matsui O et al (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma: signal intensity at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging--correlation with molecular transporters and histopathologic features. Radiology 256:817–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kahn J, Posch H, Steffen IG et al (2017) Is there long-term signal intensity increase in the central nervous system on T1-weighted images after MR imaging with the Hepatospecific contrast agent Gadoxetic acid? A cross-sectional study in 91 patients. Radiology 282:708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ et al (2015) Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 275:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ et al (2015) High-signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and Globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images: evaluation of the macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent Gadobutrol. Invest Radiol 50:805–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kierans AS, Kang SK, Rosenkrantz AB (2016) The diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma measuring up to 2 cm: a meta-analysis. Radiology 278:82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Besa C, Lewis S, Pandharipande PV et al (2017) Hepatocellular carcinoma detection: diagnostic performance of a simulated abbreviated MRI protocol combining diffusion-weighted and T1-weighted imaging at the delayed phase post gadoxetic acid. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI et al (2013) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Robert M, Sofair AN, Thomas A et al (2009) A comparison of hepatopathologists' and community pathologists' review of liver biopsy specimens from patients with hepatitis C. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    International Consensus Group for Hepatocellular NeoplasiaThe International Consensus Group for Hepatocellular Neoplasia (2009) Pathologic diagnosis of early hepatocellular carcinoma: a report of the international consensus group for hepatocellular neoplasia. Hepatology 49:658–664Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sahar Semaan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Naik Vietti Violi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sara Lewis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Manjil Chatterji
    • 1
  • Christopher Song
    • 1
  • Cecilia Besa
    • 2
    • 4
  • James S. Babb
    • 5
  • M. Isabel Fiel
    • 6
  • Myron Schwartz
    • 7
  • Swan Thung
    • 6
  • Claude B. Sirlin
    • 8
  • Bachir Taouli
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Body MRIIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Translational and Molecular Imaging InstituteIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyLausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, School of MedicinePontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyNew York University Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of PathologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Recanati/Miller Transplantation InstituteIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.Liver Imaging Group, Department of RadiologyUC San Diego Medical CenterSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations