Hepatocellular carcinoma detection in liver cirrhosis: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast vs. gadoxetic acid
- 110 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
• 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.
KeywordsLiver neoplasms Magnetic resonance imaging Contrast media Tomography, spiral computed
Extracellular gadolinium based contrast-enhanced MRI
Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI
Gadolinium based contrast agents
Liver imaging reporting and data system
Negative predictive value
Positive predictive value
United network for organ sharing
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• case-control study.
• performed at one institution.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.LIRADS_2017_CORE. Available via https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/LI-RADS/LIRADS_2017_Core.pdf?la=en
- 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
- 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