OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI) findings of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and its diagnostic value. METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted in Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify studies evaluating Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI findings of FNH. To evaluate the frequency of characteristic imaging findings on Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI, pooled proportions of high/iso signal intensity (SI) on the hepatobiliary phase (HBP), arterial enhancement, high/iso SI on the portal-venous phase (PVP) or equilibrium phase (EP), and the central scar were calculated. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high/iso SI on HBP for distinguishing FNH from hepatocellular adenoma. RESULTS: A review of 96 articles identified ten eligible articles with 304 patients with FNHs for meta-analysis. Pooled proportion of the Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI findings showed that high/iso SI on the HBP, arterial enhancement, and high/iso SI on the PVP/EP were observed in 93% (95% CI, 90-97%), 99% (95% CI, 97-100%), and 97% (95% CI, 95-99%) of FNHs, respectively, while a central scar was observed in 61% of FNHs (95% CI, 47-74%). High/iso SI on the HBP was highly accurate for distinguishing FNH from hepatocellular adenoma, with a summary sensitivity of 93.9% (95% CI, 89.1-97.1%) and a specificity of 95.3% (95% CI, 88.4-98.7%). CONCLUSIONS: High/iso SI on the HBP of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI is characteristic and a prevalent finding of FNHs and can be helpful in the management of patients with FNH. KEY POINTS: • The vast majority (94-97 %) of FNHs show high/iso SI on HBP. • High/iso SI on HBP was accurate for distinguishing FNH from hepatocellular adenoma. • HBP of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI can reduce unnecessary biopsies for the diagnosis of FNHs.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI) findings of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and its diagnostic value. METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted in Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify studies evaluating Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI findings of FNH. To evaluate the frequency of characteristic imaging findings on Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI, pooled proportions of high/iso signal intensity (SI) on the hepatobiliary phase (HBP), arterial enhancement, high/iso SI on the portal-venous phase (PVP) or equilibrium phase (EP), and the central scar were calculated. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high/iso SI on HBP for distinguishing FNH from hepatocellular adenoma. RESULTS: A review of 96 articles identified ten eligible articles with 304 patients with FNHs for meta-analysis. Pooled proportion of the Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI findings showed that high/iso SI on the HBP, arterial enhancement, and high/iso SI on the PVP/EP were observed in 93% (95% CI, 90-97%), 99% (95% CI, 97-100%), and 97% (95% CI, 95-99%) of FNHs, respectively, while a central scar was observed in 61% of FNHs (95% CI, 47-74%). High/iso SI on the HBP was highly accurate for distinguishing FNH from hepatocellular adenoma, with a summary sensitivity of 93.9% (95% CI, 89.1-97.1%) and a specificity of 95.3% (95% CI, 88.4-98.7%). CONCLUSIONS: High/iso SI on the HBP of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI is characteristic and a prevalent finding of FNHs and can be helpful in the management of patients with FNH. KEY POINTS: • The vast majority (94-97 %) of FNHs show high/iso SI on HBP. • High/iso SI on HBP was accurate for distinguishing FNH from hepatocellular adenoma. • HBP of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI can reduce unnecessary biopsies for the diagnosis of FNHs.
Authors: P Bioulac-Sage; C Balabaud; P Bedossa; J Y Scoazec; L Chiche; A P Dhillon; L Ferrell; V Paradis; T Roskams; V Vilgrain; I R Wanless; J Zucman-Rossi Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2007-01-02 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Manojkumar Saranathan; Iva Petkovska; Brian A Hargreaves; Robert J Herfkens; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Matthanja Bieze; Jacomina W van den Esschert; C Yung Nio; Joanne Verheij; Johannes B Reitsma; Valeska Terpstra; Thomas M van Gulik; Saffire S K S Phoa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A Weimann; B Ringe; J Klempnauer; P Lamesch; K F Gratz; M Prokop; H Maschek; G Tusch; R Pichlmayr Journal: World J Surg Date: 1997 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Andrea Agostini; Moritz F Kircher; Richard K G Do; Alessandra Borgheresi; Serena Monti; Andrea Giovagnoni; Lorenzo Mannelli Journal: Semin Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 0.800
Authors: Guilherme Moura Cunha; Kyle A Hasenstab; Atsushi Higaki; Kang Wang; Timo Delgado; Ryan L Brunsing; Alexandra Schlein; Armin Schwartzman; Albert Hsiao; Claude B Sirlin; Katie J Fowler Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 3.528