Hyo Jung Park1, Hye Young Jang2, So Yeon Kim3, So Jung Lee1, Hyung Jin Won1, Jae Ho Byun1, Sang Hyun Choi1, Seung Soo Lee1, Jihyun An4, Young-Suk Lim5. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: sykimrad@amc.seoul.kr. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hanyang University of Medicine, Guri, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recently revised international guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suggest that patients with inadequate ultrasonography be assessed by alternative imaging modalities. Non-enhanced MRI has potential as a surveillance tool based on the short scan times required and the absence of contrast agent-associated risks. This study compared the performance of non-enhanced MRI and ultrasonography for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients. METHODS: We included 382 high-risk patients in a prospective cohort who underwent 1 to 3 rounds of paired gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and ultrasonography. Non-enhanced MRI, consisting of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and T2-weighted imaging, was simulated and retrospectively analyzed, with results considered positive when lesion(s) ≥1 cm showed diffusion restriction or mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity. Ultrasonography results were retrieved from patient records. HCC was diagnosed histologically and/or radiologically. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Forty-eight HCCs were diagnosed in 43 patients. Per-lesion and per-exam sensitivities of non-enhanced MRI were 77.1% and 79.1%, respectively, which were higher than those achieved with ultrasonography (25.0% and 27.9%, respectively, p <0.001). Specificities of non-enhanced MRI (97.9%) and ultrasonography (94.5%) differed significantly (p <0.001). NPV was higher for non-enhanced MRI (99.1%) than ultrasonography (96.9%). Per-lesion and per-exam PPVs were higher for non-enhanced MRI (56.9% and 61.8%, respectively) than for ultrasonography (16.7% and 17.7%, respectively). The estimated scan time of non-enhanced MRI was <6 min. CONCLUSION: Based on its good performance, short scan times, and the lack of contrast agent-associated risks, non-enhanced MRI is a promising option for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients. LAY SUMMARY: Recently revised international guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suggest that selected patients with inadequate surveillance on ultrasonography be assessed by alternative imaging modalities such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Herein, we show that MRI without contrast agents performed significantly better than ultrasonography for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients. Given this good performance, as well as short scan times and the lack of contrast agent-associated risks, non-enhanced MRI is a promising option for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recently revised international guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suggest that patients with inadequate ultrasonography be assessed by alternative imaging modalities. Non-enhanced MRI has potential as a surveillance tool based on the short scan times required and the absence of contrast agent-associated risks. This study compared the performance of non-enhanced MRI and ultrasonography for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients. METHODS: We included 382 high-risk patients in a prospective cohort who underwent 1 to 3 rounds of paired gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and ultrasonography. Non-enhanced MRI, consisting of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and T2-weighted imaging, was simulated and retrospectively analyzed, with results considered positive when lesion(s) ≥1 cm showed diffusion restriction or mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity. Ultrasonography results were retrieved from patient records. HCC was diagnosed histologically and/or radiologically. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Forty-eight HCCs were diagnosed in 43 patients. Per-lesion and per-exam sensitivities of non-enhanced MRI were 77.1% and 79.1%, respectively, which were higher than those achieved with ultrasonography (25.0% and 27.9%, respectively, p <0.001). Specificities of non-enhanced MRI (97.9%) and ultrasonography (94.5%) differed significantly (p <0.001). NPV was higher for non-enhanced MRI (99.1%) than ultrasonography (96.9%). Per-lesion and per-exam PPVs were higher for non-enhanced MRI (56.9% and 61.8%, respectively) than for ultrasonography (16.7% and 17.7%, respectively). The estimated scan time of non-enhanced MRI was <6 min. CONCLUSION: Based on its good performance, short scan times, and the lack of contrast agent-associated risks, non-enhanced MRI is a promising option for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients. LAY SUMMARY: Recently revised international guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suggest that selected patients with inadequate surveillance on ultrasonography be assessed by alternative imaging modalities such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Herein, we show that MRI without contrast agents performed significantly better than ultrasonography for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients. Given this good performance, as well as short scan times and the lack of contrast agent-associated risks, non-enhanced MRI is a promising option for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients.
Authors: Mohammed Eslam; Shiv K Sarin; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong; Jian-Gao Fan; Takumi Kawaguchi; Sang Hoon Ahn; Ming-Hua Zheng; Gamal Shiha; Yusuf Yilmaz; Rino Gani; Shahinul Alam; Yock Young Dan; Jia-Horng Kao; Saeed Hamid; Ian Homer Cua; Wah-Kheong Chan; Diana Payawal; Soek-Siam Tan; Tawesak Tanwandee; Leon A Adams; Manoj Kumar; Masao Omata; Jacob George Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 6.047
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: Matteo Renzulli; Nicolò Brandi; Anna Pecorelli; Luigi Vincenzo Pastore; Alessandro Granito; Giuseppe Martinese; Francesco Tovoli; Mario Simonetti; Elton Dajti; Antonio Colecchia; Rita Golfieri Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-29