Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 549–558 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of MRI with extracellular vs. hepatobiliary contrast material for detection of residual hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional treatment

  • Jordi RimolaEmail author
  • Matthew S. Davenport
  • Peter S. Liu
  • Theodore Brown
  • Jorge A. Marrero
  • Barbara J. McKenna
  • Hero K. Hussain



To compare the diagnostic accuracy of extracellular gadolinium-based contrast-enhanced MRI (Gd-MRI) and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) for the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) response to locoregional therapy (LRT) using explant correlation as the reference standard.


Forty-nine subjects with cirrhosis and HCC treated with LRT who underwent liver MRI using either Gd-MRI (n = 26) or EOB-MRI (n = 23) within 90 days of liver transplantation were included. Four radiologists reviewed the MR images blinded to histology to determine the size and percentage of viable residual HCC using a per-lesion explant reference standard. Sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and agreement with histology for the detection residual HCC were calculated.


Gd-MRI had greater agreement with histology (ICC: 0.98 [0.95–0.99] vs. 0.80 [0.63–0.90]) and greater sensitivity for viable HCC (76% [13/17 50–93%] vs. 58% [7/12; 28–85%]) than EOB-MRI; specificities were similar (84% [16/19; 60–97%] vs. 85% [23/27; 66–96%]). Areas under ROC curves for detecting residual viable tumor were 0.80 (0.64–0.92) for Gd-MRI and 0.72 (0.55–0.85) for EOB-MRI. Gd-MRI had greater inter-rater agreement than EOB-MRI for determining the size of residual viable HCC (ICC: 0.96 [0.92–0.98] vs. 0.85 [0.72–0.92]).


Gd-MRI may be more accurate and precise than EOB-MRI for the assessment of viable HCC following LRT.


Hepatocellular carcinoma Liver Magnetic resonance imaging Radiofrequency ablation Trans-arterial chemoembolization 



Hepatocellular carcinoma


Magnetic resonance


Gadolinium-based contrast-enhanced MRI


Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI


Locoregional treatment


Receiver operator characteristics


Radiofrequency ablation


Trans-arterial chemoembolization


European Association for the Study of the Liver


Compliance with ethical standards


Jordi Rimola was partially supported by a grant from Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero.

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.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

261_2018_1775_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)


  1. 1.
    Llovet JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J, et al. (2008) Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:698–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Kulik LM, et al. (2010) Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis in a 172-patient cohort. Radiology 255:955–965CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Llovet JM, Real MI, Montaña X, et al. (2002) Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 359:1734–1739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lo C-M, Ngan H, Tso W-K, et al. (2002) Randomized controlled trial of transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 35:1164–1171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Llovet JM, Bruix J (2003) Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization improves survival. Hepatology. 37:429–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. (2008) Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 359:378–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dhanasekaran R, Khanna V, Kooby DA, et al. (2010) The effectiveness of locoregional therapies versus supportive care in maintaining survival within the Milan criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:1197–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Memon K, Kulik L, Lewandowski RJ, et al. (2011) Radiographic response to locoregional therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma predicts patient survival times. Gastroenterology 141:526–535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lao OB, Weissman J, Perkins JD (2009) Pre-transplant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with a lower recurrence after liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 23:874–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sala M, Llovet JM, Vilana R, et al. (2004) Initial response to percutaneous ablation predicts survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 40:1352–1360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gillmore R, Stuart S, Kirkwood A, et al. (2011) EASL and mRECIST responses are independent prognostic factors for survival in hepatocellular cancer patients treated with transarterial embolization. J Hepatol 55:1309–1316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Georgiades C, Geschwind J-F, Harrison N, et al. (2012) Lack of response after initial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: does it predict failure of subsequent treatment? Radiology 265:115–123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prajapati HJ, Spivey JR, Hanish SI, et al. (2013) mRECIST and EASL responses at early time point by contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI predict survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by doxorubicin drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB TACE). Ann Oncol 24:965–973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reig M, Rimola J, Torres F, et al. (2013) Postprogression survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for second-line trial design. Hepatology 58:2023–2031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, et al. (2001) Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 35:421–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dufour JF, Greten TF, Raymond E, et al. (2012) Clinical practice guidelines EASL—EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Hepatol 56:908–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, et al. (2018) Diagnosis, staging and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galle PR, Forner A, Llovet JM, et al. (2018) EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahn SS, Kim M-J, Lim JS, et al. (2010) Added value of gadoxetic acid—enhanced hepatobiliary phase MR imaging in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 255:459–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 256:806–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seong HK, Kim SH, Lee J, et al. (2009) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI versus triple-phase MDCT for the preoperative detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 192:1675–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts LR, Sirlin CB, Zaiem F, et al. (2018) Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 67:401–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, et al. (2014) Surveillance and diagnostic algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma proposed by the liver cancer study group of Japan: 2014 update. Oncology 87(Suppl 1):7–21. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merkle EM, Zech CJ, Bartolozzi C, et al. (2016) Consensus report from the 7th International Forum for liver magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 26:674–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Neri E, Bali MA, Ba-Ssalamah A, Boraschi P, Brancatelli G (2016) ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. Eur Radiol 26:921–931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (liver imaging reporting and data system): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Goshima S, et al. (2012) Is gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI useful for detecting local recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation therapy? Am J Roentgenol 198:589–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davenport MS, Caoili EM, Kaza RK, Hussain HK (2014) Matched within-patient cohort study of transient arterial phase respiratory motion-related artifact in MR imaging of the liver: gadoxetate disodium versus gadobenate dimeglumine. Radiology 272:123–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Motosugi U, Bannas P, Bookwalter C, Sano K, Reede S (2016) An investigation of transient severe motion related to gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 279:93–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, Hussain HK (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology. 266:376–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. (2009) Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 115:616–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ferenci P, Fried M, Labrecque D, et al. (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): a global perspective. J Clin Gastroenterol 44:239–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davenport MS, Al-hawary MM, Caoili EM, et al. (2013) Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate phase image quality 1. Radiology. 266:452–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Beers BE, Pastor CM, Hussain HK (2012) Primovist, Eovist: what to expect? J Hepatol 57:421–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bashir MR, Castelli P, Davenport MS, et al. (2015) Respiratory motion artifact affecting hepatic arterial phase MR imaging with gadoxetate disodium is more common in patients with a prior episode of arterial phase motion associated with gadoxetate disodium. Radiology 274:141–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim S, Mannelli L, Hajdu CH, et al. (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma: assessment of response to transarterial chemoembolization with image subtraction. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:348–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Riaz A, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. (2010) Radiologic-pathologic correlation of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with chemoembolization. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 33:1143–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bashir MR, Gupta RT, Davenport MS, et al. (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma in a North American population: does hepatobiliary MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA improve sensitivity and confidence for diagnosis? J Magn Reson Imaging 406:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mannelli L, Kim S, Hajdu CH, et al. (2009) Assessment of tumor necrosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after chemoembolization: diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced MRI with histopathologic correlation of the explanted liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1044–1052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, et al. (2008) Evaluating local hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence post-transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: is diffusion-weighted MRI reliable as an indicator? J Magn Reson Imaging 27:834–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BCLC Group, Radiology Department, Hospital Clínic BarcelonaUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Abdominal Imaging Imaging InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of HepatologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations