Literature DB >> 31209978

Abbreviated-protocol screening MRI vs. complete-protocol diagnostic MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: An equivalence study using LI-RADS v2018.

Gaurav Khatri1, Ivan Pedrosa1, Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan1, Alberto Diaz de Leon1, David T Fetzer1, John Leyendecker1, Amit G Singal2, Yin Xi1, Adam Yopp3, Takeshi Yokoo1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The high operational cost of MRI limits its utility for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening. Abbreviated-protocol dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (aMRI) may help lower cost while maintaining the high accuracy of complete-protocol diagnostic MRI (cMRI).
PURPOSE: To compare aMRI to cMRI for HCC detection in cirrhosis patients. STUDY TYPE: Cross-sectional study. STUDY POPULATION: Cirrhosis patients undergoing MRI for suspected HCC. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T and 3T; aMRI (coronal T2 -weighted, axial dynamic contrast-enhanced T1 -weighted fat-suppressed sequences); cMRI (aMRI sequences and unenhanced axial T2 -, T1 -, and diffusion-weighted sequences). ASSESSMENT: From each cMRI, an abbreviated exam was created by extracting only the aMRI sequences. Five radiologists independently reviewed aMRI and cMRI and assigned per-patient screening results by the presence/absence of any actionable observation per Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System v2018 (LI-RADS 4, 5, M, or TIV categories). Per-patient HCC status was determined by the composite reference standard of histopathology, follow-up imaging, consensus expert panel imaging review, and clinical follow-up. STATISTICAL TESTS: Interreader agreement between aMRI and cMRI was compared with that of cMRI and tested for interchangeability against a tolerance margin of 0.05. Per-patient screening sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared between aMRI and cMRI and tested for equivalence against a tolerance margin of 0.05.
RESULTS: In 93 cirrhosis patients, five radiologists recorded on average 121 liver observations. Interreader screening agreement probability (and 95% confidence interval confidence interval [CI]) was 0.914 [0.900, 0.926] between aMRI and cMRI, and 0.927 [0.908, 0.942] for cMRI; their difference was within the 0.05 margin for interchangeability. In 86 patients in whom a final HCC status could be determined, the detection sensitivity and specificity of aMRI was 0.921 [0.864, 0.956] and 0.886 [0.844, 0.918], within the 5% equivalence margin to cMRI, 0.936 [0.881, 0.965] and 0.883 [0.840, 0.915], respectively. DATA
CONCLUSION: Abbreviated-protocol screening MRI is interchangeable with, and equivalent to, complete-protocol diagnostic MRI for per-patient HCC detection in cirrhosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:415-425.
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  LI-RADS; abbreviated MRI; cirrhosis; early detection; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver cancer; screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31209978     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26835

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  21 in total

Review 1.  Abbreviated Magnetic Resonance Imaging for HCC Surveillance.

Authors:  Naik Vietti Violi; Kathryn J Fowler; Claude B Sirlin; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken)       Date:  2021-04-13

Review 2.  Abbreviated MRI for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening and Surveillance.

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

3.  Inter-reader agreement of abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging for hepatocellular carcinoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dong Hwan Kim; Sang Hyun Choi; Ji Sung Lee; Joon-Il Choi
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-10-11

4.  HCC surveillance improves early detection, curative treatment receipt, and survival in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Emily Zhang; Manasa Narasimman; Nicole E Rich; Akbar K Waljee; Yujin Hoshida; Ju Dong Yang; Maria Reig; Giuseppe Cabibbo; Pierre Nahon; Neehar D Parikh; Jorge A Marrero
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2022-02-06       Impact factor: 30.083

Review 5.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

Authors:  Tin Nadarevic; Agostino Colli; Vanja Giljaca; Mirella Fraquelli; Giovanni Casazza; Cristina Manzotti; Davor Štimac; Damir Miletic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-05-06

6.  Emerging risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease associated hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Jihane N Benhammou; Jonathan Lin; Shehnaz K Hussain; Mohamed El-Kabany
Journal:  Hepatoma Res       Date:  2020-06-18

Review 7.  Epidemiology and surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma: New trends.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Pietro Lampertico; Pierre Nahon
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 8.  Abbreviated MR Protocols for Chronic Liver Disease and Liver Cancer.

Authors:  Guillermo Carbonell; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 1.376

Review 9.  Imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Future directions with special emphasis on hepatobiliary magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.

Authors:  Junghoan Park; Jeong Min Lee; Tae-Hyung Kim; Jeong Hee Yoon
Journal:  Clin Mol Hepatol       Date:  2021-12-27

10.  Current status of image-based surveillance in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Dong Hwan Kim; Joon-Il Choi
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2020-07-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.