Jennifer Y Lee1, Eugene J Huo1, Stefanie Weinstein1,2, Charmaine Santos2, Alexander Monto3,4, Carlos U Corvera5, Judy Yee1,2, Thomas A Hope6,7. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. thomas.hope@ucsf.edu. 7. Department of Radiology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. thomas.hope@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we compare an abbreviated screening MRI protocol (aMRI), utilizing only dynamic contrast-enhanced images, to a conventional liver MRI (cMRI) for the characterization of observations in at-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 164 consecutive HCC screening MRIs were retrospectively analyzed. Two sets of de-identified image sets were created: one with all acquired sequences including T2- and diffusion-weighted sequences (cMRI), and one with only T1-weighted precontrast and dynamic post-contrast images utilizing an extracellular gadolinium contrast agent (aMRI). Three readers assigned a LI-RADS score based on the lesion with the highest LI-RADS category using the aMRI and cMRI datasets during separate reads. RESULTS: There was no change between the aMRI and cMRI LI-RADS categorization in 93%, 96%, and 96% of cases for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In the majority of the discrepant cases, the score increased from LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 4 due to the presence of ancillary features on T2 and DWI. Kappa values for interobserver variability demonstrated fair-to-moderate LI-RADS agreement among the 3 readers. CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement between the abbreviated T1-only MRI protocol and a full liver MRI, with only 5% of cases changing LI-RADS categorization due to the inclusion of T2 and DWI. The estimated time to run this abbreviated MRI is approximately 7-10 min, possibly allowing for a more cost-effective screening MRI than our cMRIs.
PURPOSE: In this study, we compare an abbreviated screening MRI protocol (aMRI), utilizing only dynamic contrast-enhanced images, to a conventional liver MRI (cMRI) for the characterization of observations in at-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 164 consecutive HCC screening MRIs were retrospectively analyzed. Two sets of de-identified image sets were created: one with all acquired sequences including T2- and diffusion-weighted sequences (cMRI), and one with only T1-weighted precontrast and dynamic post-contrast images utilizing an extracellular gadolinium contrast agent (aMRI). Three readers assigned a LI-RADS score based on the lesion with the highest LI-RADS category using the aMRI and cMRI datasets during separate reads. RESULTS: There was no change between the aMRI and cMRI LI-RADS categorization in 93%, 96%, and 96% of cases for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In the majority of the discrepant cases, the score increased from LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 4 due to the presence of ancillary features on T2 and DWI. Kappa values for interobserver variability demonstrated fair-to-moderate LI-RADS agreement among the 3 readers. CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement between the abbreviated T1-only MRI protocol and a full liver MRI, with only 5% of cases changing LI-RADS categorization due to the inclusion of T2 and DWI. The estimated time to run this abbreviated MRI is approximately 7-10 min, possibly allowing for a more cost-effective screening MRI than our cMRIs.
Authors: Julie Y An; Miguel A Peña; Guilherme M Cunha; Michael T Booker; Bachir Taouli; Takeshi Yokoo; Claude B Sirlin; Kathryn J Fowler Journal: Radiographics Date: 2020 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Dennis H Chen; Alexandra Schlein; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; Adrija Mamidipalli; Naik Vietti Violi; Robert M Marks; Bachir Taouli; Rohit Loomba; Yuko Kono; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2019-11-29
Authors: Doris Leithner; Linda Moy; Elizabeth A Morris; Maria A Marino; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 4.813