Masakatsu Tsurusaki1, Keitaro Sofue2,3, Hiroyoshi Isoda4, Masahiro Okada5, Kazuhiro Kitajima3,6, Takamichi Murakami5. 1. Faculty of Medicine-Radiology, Kinki University, Osakasayama, Osaka, Japan. mtsuru@dk2.so-net.ne.jp. 2. National Cancer Center Hospital-Diagnostic Radiology, 5-1-1, Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. 3. Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine-Radiology, 7-5-2, Kusunoki-Cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan. 4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. 5. Faculty of Medicine-Radiology, Kinki University, Osakasayama, Osaka, Japan. 6. Department of Raiology, Dokkyo Medical School, Mibu, Tochigi, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has an important role in preoperative evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no studies have prospectively performed intraindividual comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3T MRI and multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) with histopathological examination for the detection of HCCs. We prospectively compared the efficacies of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and multiphasic contrast-enhanced MDCT with that of histopathological examination, used as a reference standard, for the detection of HCC in surgical candidates. METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review boards at each of four centers. Patients scheduled to undergo multiphasic CT, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, and liver surgery were prospectively included in this study. The diagnostic abilities of MRI and CT were evaluated and compared on the basis of sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of and differentiation between HCCs and benign lesions. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with 83 histopathologically confirmed HCCs were included in the study. Combined interpretation of the dynamic and hepatobiliary phases of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI showed statistically higher sensitivity for lesion detection (83 %) than did interpretation of multiphasic MDCT images (70 %; p < 0.001). The mean area under each alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics curve was significantly higher for MR images (0.927) than for CT images (0.864, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity for preoperative detection of HCCs was higher for gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI than for multiphasic MDCT imaging.
BACKGROUND:Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has an important role in preoperative evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no studies have prospectively performed intraindividual comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3T MRI and multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) with histopathological examination for the detection of HCCs. We prospectively compared the efficacies of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and multiphasic contrast-enhanced MDCT with that of histopathological examination, used as a reference standard, for the detection of HCC in surgical candidates. METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review boards at each of four centers. Patients scheduled to undergo multiphasic CT, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, and liver surgery were prospectively included in this study. The diagnostic abilities of MRI and CT were evaluated and compared on the basis of sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of and differentiation between HCCs and benign lesions. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with 83 histopathologically confirmed HCCs were included in the study. Combined interpretation of the dynamic and hepatobiliary phases of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI showed statistically higher sensitivity for lesion detection (83 %) than did interpretation of multiphasic MDCT images (70 %; p < 0.001). The mean area under each alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics curve was significantly higher for MR images (0.927) than for CT images (0.864, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity for preoperative detection of HCCs was higher for gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI than for multiphasic MDCT imaging.
Authors: J Petersein; A Spinazzi; A Giovagnoni; P Soyer; F Terrier; R Lencioni; C Bartolozzi; L Grazioli; A Chiesa; R Manfredi; P Marano; E L Van Persijn Van Meerten; J L Bloem; C Petre; G Marchal; A Greco; M T McNamara; A Heuck; M Reiser; M Laniado; C Claussen; H E Daldrup; E Rummeny; M A Kirchin; G Pirovano; B Hamm Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T Murakami; T Kim; M Takamura; M Hori; S Takahashi; M P Federle; K Tsuda; K Osuga; S Kawata; H Nakamura; M Kudo Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Seong Hyun Kim; Dongil Choi; Seung Hoon Kim; Jae Hoon Lim; Won Jae Lee; Min Ju Kim; Hyo K Lim; Soon Jin Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marcus M von Falkenhausen; Götz Lutterbey; Nuschin Morakkabati-Spitz; Oliver Walter; Jürgen Gieseke; Renate Blömer; Winfried A Willinek; Hans H Schild; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Gkika; S Tanadini-Lang; S Kirste; P A Holzner; H P Neeff; H C Rischke; T Reese; F Lohaus; M N Duma; K Dieckmann; R Semrau; M Stockinger; D Imhoff; N Kremers; M F Häfner; N Andratschke; U Nestle; A L Grosu; M Guckenberger; T B Brunner Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Rizwan Aslam; Stefanie Weinstein; Benjamin M Yeh; Carlos U Corvera; Alex Monto; Judy Yee Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Christina Schraml; Sascha Kaufmann; Hansjoerg Rempp; Roland Syha; Dominik Ketelsen; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2015-11-27