Thomas A Hope1, Rizwan Aslam, Stefanie Weinstein, Benjamin M Yeh, Carlos U Corvera, Alex Monto, Judy Yee. 1. From the *Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging and †Department of Radiology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; ‡Department of Radiology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and §Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco; and ∥Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves lesion characterization in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma compared with computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients with indeterminate lesions found at contrast-enhanced CT were prospectively enrolled and imaged using gadoxetate-enhanced hepatobiliary phase (HBP) MRI within 30 days of their initial CT. Three readers graded each lesion at CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2014 major criteria and HBP characterization as an ancillary feature. Patients were followed for an average of 1.8 years to document growth or stability of each lesion. RESULTS: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System categorization changed for 71% (52/73) of lesions based on HBP MRI compared with CT, with 30% (22/73) of lesions upgraded and 41% (30/73) of lesions downgraded. There was almost perfect agreement between readers for arterial phase hyperintensity and HBP hypointensity, with lower interreader agreement for washout and capsule appearance. On the basis of composite clinical follow-up, lesions that were subsequently classified as hepatocellular carcinoma were assigned a higher LI-RADS category on HBP MRI when compared with CT. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with indeterminate lesions seen on contrast-enhanced CT, HBP MRI using gadoxetate improves lesion characterization when using LI-RADS v2014 criteria.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves lesion characterization in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma compared with computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients with indeterminate lesions found at contrast-enhanced CT were prospectively enrolled and imaged using gadoxetate-enhanced hepatobiliary phase (HBP) MRI within 30 days of their initial CT. Three readers graded each lesion at CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2014 major criteria and HBP characterization as an ancillary feature. Patients were followed for an average of 1.8 years to document growth or stability of each lesion. RESULTS: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System categorization changed for 71% (52/73) of lesions based on HBP MRI compared with CT, with 30% (22/73) of lesions upgraded and 41% (30/73) of lesions downgraded. There was almost perfect agreement between readers for arterial phase hyperintensity and HBP hypointensity, with lower interreader agreement for washout and capsule appearance. On the basis of composite clinical follow-up, lesions that were subsequently classified as hepatocellular carcinoma were assigned a higher LI-RADS category on HBP MRI when compared with CT. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with indeterminate lesions seen on contrast-enhanced CT, HBP MRI using gadoxetate improves lesion characterization when using LI-RADS v2014 criteria.
Authors: Michael T Corwin; Ghaneh Fananapazir; Michael Jin; Ramit Lamba; Mustafa R Bashir Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Thomas A Hope; Kathryn J Fowler; Claude B Sirlin; Eduardo A C Costa; Judy Yee; Benjamin M Yeh; Jay P Heiken Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-03
Authors: Sooah Kim; Thais C Mussi; Lawrence J Lee; Elizabeth V Mausner; Kyunghee C Cho; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Barbara Schellhaas; Matthias Hammon; Deike Strobel; Lukas Pfeifer; Christian Kielisch; Ruediger S Goertz; Alexander Cavallaro; Rolf Janka; Markus F Neurath; Michael Uder; Hannes Seuss Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Victoria Chernyak; Kathryn J Fowler; Aya Kamaya; Ania Z Kielar; Khaled M Elsayes; Mustafa R Bashir; Yuko Kono; Richard K Do; Donald G Mitchell; Amit G Singal; An Tang; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bohyun Kim; Jei Hee Lee; Jai Keun Kim; Hye Jin Kim; Young Bae Kim; Dakeun Lee Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Christoph J Zech; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Thomas Berg; Hersh Chandarana; Gar-Yang Chau; Luigi Grazioli; Myeong-Jin Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Elmar M Merkle; Takamichi Murakami; Jens Ricke; Claude B Sirlin; Bin Song; Bachir Taouli; Kengo Yoshimitsu; Dow-Mu Koh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 5.315