B G Tillman1, J D Gorman1, J M Hru1, M H Lee1, M C King1, C B Sirlin2, R M Marks3. 1. Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: robert.m.marks.mil@mail.mil.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic per-lesion performance of a simulated gadoxetate disodium-enhanced abbreviated MRI (AMRI) in cirrhotic and chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients at risk for HCC due to cirrhosis and/or CHB were included in this retrospective study. For each patient, the first gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI between 2008 through 2014 was analysed. Two independent readers read an anonymised abbreviated image set comprising axial T1-weighted (W) images with fat saturation in the hepatobiliary phase, 20 minutes or more after gadoxetate injection, and axial T2W single-shot fast spin echo images. Each observation >10 mm was scored as negative or suspicious for HCC. Inter-reader agreement was assessed. A composite reference standard was used to determine the per-lesion diagnostic performance for each reader. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement was substantial (κ = 0.75). The final reference standard showed 27 HCCs in 13 patients (median 21 mm, range 11-100 mm). The two readers each correctly scored 23 as suspicious for HCC (sensitivity = 85.2%), scored a total of 27 and 32 observations as suspicious for HCC (positive predictive value [PPV] = 85.2% and 71.9%), and scored 83 and 78 observations or complete examinations as negative for HCC (negative predictive value [NPV] = 95.2% and 94.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The AMRI protocol provides higher per-lesion sensitivity and NPV than reported values for ultrasound, the current recommended technique for screening, and similar per-lesion sensitivity and PPV to reported values for complete dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic per-lesion performance of a simulated gadoxetate disodium-enhanced abbreviated MRI (AMRI) in cirrhotic and chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients at risk for HCC due to cirrhosis and/or CHB were included in this retrospective study. For each patient, the first gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI between 2008 through 2014 was analysed. Two independent readers read an anonymised abbreviated image set comprising axial T1-weighted (W) images with fat saturation in the hepatobiliary phase, 20 minutes or more after gadoxetate injection, and axial T2W single-shot fast spin echo images. Each observation >10 mm was scored as negative or suspicious for HCC. Inter-reader agreement was assessed. A composite reference standard was used to determine the per-lesion diagnostic performance for each reader. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement was substantial (κ = 0.75). The final reference standard showed 27 HCCs in 13 patients (median 21 mm, range 11-100 mm). The two readers each correctly scored 23 as suspicious for HCC (sensitivity = 85.2%), scored a total of 27 and 32 observations as suspicious for HCC (positive predictive value [PPV] = 85.2% and 71.9%), and scored 83 and 78 observations or complete examinations as negative for HCC (negative predictive value [NPV] = 95.2% and 94.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The AMRI protocol provides higher per-lesion sensitivity and NPV than reported values for ultrasound, the current recommended technique for screening, and similar per-lesion sensitivity and PPV to reported values for complete dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
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
Authors: Roberta Resaz; Francesca Rosa; Federica Grillo; Luca Basso; Daniela Segalerba; Andrea Puglisi; Maria Carla Bosco; Luca Mastracci; Carlo E Neumaier; Luigi Varesio; Alessandra Eva Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Sean A Woolen; Amit G Singal; Matthew S Davenport; Jonathan P Troost; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Sukul Mittal; Sehar Siddiqui; Austin Fobar; Jason Morris; Mobolaji Odewole; Elliot B Tapper; Anjana Pillai; Neehar D Parikh Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 13.576