Sahar Semaan1,2, Naik Vietti Violi2,3, Sara Lewis1,2, Manjil Chatterji1, Christopher Song1, Cecilia Besa2,4, James S Babb5, M Isabel Fiel6, Myron Schwartz7, Swan Thung6, Claude B Sirlin8, Bachir Taouli9,10. 1. Department of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 2. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins 340, 8331150, Santiago, Chile. 5. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, 333 E 38th Street, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 7. Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, USA. 8. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, UC San Diego Medical Center, 200 West Arbor Drive, San Diego, CA, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. bachir.taouli@mountsinai.org. 10. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. bachir.taouli@mountsinai.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) vs. MRI with gadoxetic acid (EOB-MRI) for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis using liver explant as the reference. The additional value of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) post Gadoxetic acid was also assessed. METHODS: Two-hundred seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent liver transplantation over a 9 year period and imaging within 90 days of were retrospectively included. Imaging consisted in CT (n = 100), EC-MRI (n = 77) and EOB-MRI (n = 100), the latter subdivided into dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI (dynamic+HBP). Three radiologists retrospectively categorized lesions ≥ 1 cm using the LI-RADSv2017 algorithm. Dynamic EOB-MRI was re-evaluated with the addition of HBP. Results were correlated with explant pathology. RESULTS: Pathology demonstrated 265 HCCs (mean size 2.1 ± 1.4 cm) in 177 patients. Per-patient sensitivities were 86.3% for CT, 89.5% for EC-MRI, 92.8% for dynamic EOB-MRI and 95.2% for full EOB-MRI (pooled reader data), with a significant difference between CT and dynamic/full EOB-MRI (p = 0.032/0.002), and between EC-MRI and full EOB-MRI (p = 0.047). Per-lesion sensitivities for CT, EC-MRI, dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI were 59.5%,78.5%,69.7% and 76.8%, respectively, with a significant difference between MRI groups and CT (p-range:0.001-0.04), and no difference between EC-MRI and dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.949). For HCCs 1-1.9 cm, sensitivities were 34.4%, 64.6%, 57.3% and 67.3%, respectively, with all MRI groups significantly superior to CT (p ≤ 0.01) and full EOB-MRI superior to dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: EOB-MRI outperforms CT and EC-MRI for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity. MRI methods outperform CT for detection of HCCs 1-1.9 cm. KEY POINTS: • MRI is superior to CT for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis. • EOB-MRI outperforms CT and MRI using extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity. • The addition of hepatobiliary phase images improves HCC detection when using gadoxetic acid.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) vs. MRI with gadoxetic acid (EOB-MRI) for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis using liver explant as the reference. The additional value of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) post Gadoxetic acid was also assessed. METHODS: Two-hundred seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent liver transplantation over a 9 year period and imaging within 90 days of were retrospectively included. Imaging consisted in CT (n = 100), EC-MRI (n = 77) and EOB-MRI (n = 100), the latter subdivided into dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI (dynamic+HBP). Three radiologists retrospectively categorized lesions ≥ 1 cm using the LI-RADSv2017 algorithm. Dynamic EOB-MRI was re-evaluated with the addition of HBP. Results were correlated with explant pathology. RESULTS: Pathology demonstrated 265 HCCs (mean size 2.1 ± 1.4 cm) in 177 patients. Per-patient sensitivities were 86.3% for CT, 89.5% for EC-MRI, 92.8% for dynamic EOB-MRI and 95.2% for full EOB-MRI (pooled reader data), with a significant difference between CT and dynamic/full EOB-MRI (p = 0.032/0.002), and between EC-MRI and full EOB-MRI (p = 0.047). Per-lesion sensitivities for CT, EC-MRI, dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI were 59.5%,78.5%,69.7% and 76.8%, respectively, with a significant difference between MRI groups and CT (p-range:0.001-0.04), and no difference between EC-MRI and dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.949). For HCCs 1-1.9 cm, sensitivities were 34.4%, 64.6%, 57.3% and 67.3%, respectively, with all MRI groups significantly superior to CT (p ≤ 0.01) and full EOB-MRI superior to dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: EOB-MRI outperforms CT and EC-MRI for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity. MRI methods outperform CT for detection of HCCs 1-1.9 cm. KEY POINTS: • MRI is superior to CT for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis. • EOB-MRI outperforms CT and MRI using extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity. • The addition of hepatobiliary phase images improves HCC detection when using gadoxetic acid.
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Lukas D Weberling; Pascal J Kieslich; Oliver Eidel; Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Sabine Heiland; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Martin Bendszus Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christoph Wald; Mark W Russo; Julie K Heimbach; Hero K Hussain; Elizabeth A Pomfret; Jordi Bruix Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lewis R Roberts; Claude B Sirlin; Feras Zaiem; Jehad Almasri; Larry J Prokop; Julie K Heimbach; M Hassan Murad; Khaled Mohammed Journal: Hepatology Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Johannes Kahn; Helena Posch; Ingo G Steffen; Dominik Geisel; Christian Bauknecht; Thomas Liebig; Timm Denecke Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ji Hye Min; Jong Man Kim; Young Kon Kim; Tae Wook Kang; Soon Jin Lee; Gyu Seong Choi; Seo-Youn Choi; Soohyun Ahn Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Max Seidensticker; Ingo G Steffen; Irene Bargellini; Thomas Berg; Alberto Benito; Bernhard Gebauer; Roberto Iezzi; Christian Loewe; Musturay Karçaaltincaba; Maciej Pech; Christian Sengel; Otto van Delden; Vincent Vandecaveye; Christoph J Zech; Jens Ricke Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.677