Sun Kyung Jeon1,2, Jeong Min Lee3,4,5, Ijin Joo1,2, Jeongin Yoo1, Jin-Young Park6. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. 2. Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. jmsh@snu.ac.kr. 4. Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. jmsh@snu.ac.kr. 5. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. jmsh@snu.ac.kr. 6. Department of Radiology, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Busan, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare diagnostic performances of current guidelines for the diagnosis of HCC in LT candidates using gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI). METHODS: Eighty-one patients (119 HCCs and 35 non-HCCs) who underwent preoperative Gd-EOB-MRI and subsequent LT were included. Per-lesion imaging diagnoses of HCCs were made using four different guidelines (American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) guidelines, and patient allocation was determined according to Milan criteria (MC). Comparisons of per-lesion sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of patient allocation between guidelines were performed using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: For diagnosis of HCC, AASLD guideline showed highest specificity (97.4%), followed by EASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines (92.1% and 92.1%, p > 0.99 and = 0.15, respectively, in comparison to AASLD), while the specificity of APASL guideline was significantly lower than that of AASLD guideline (78.9% vs. 97.4%, p = 0.006). APASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines (75.9% and 65.6%) showed significantly higher sensitivities than AASLD/EASL guidelines (34.5% and 38.8%, respectively; all ps < 0.001). For organ allocation, KLCA-NCC guideline showed higher accuracy in selecting unsuitable candidates (with non-HCC malignancies or beyond MC HCCs) than EASL guideline (68.4% vs. 31.8%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For the diagnosis of HCCs using Gd-EOB-MRI, AASLD guideline provided the highest specificity, followed by EASL, KLCA-NCC, and APASL guidelines with statistically significant difference with only APASL guideline. KLCA-NCC guideline provided the most accurate selection of unsuitable LT candidates. KEY POINTS: • AASLD/LI-RADS showed the highest specificity, followed by EASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines. • APASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines allowed more sensitive diagnoses of HCCs. • KLCA-NCC more accurately classified patients not appropriate transplantation candidates than EASL.
OBJECTIVES: To compare diagnostic performances of current guidelines for the diagnosis of HCC in LT candidates using gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI). METHODS: Eighty-one patients (119 HCCs and 35 non-HCCs) who underwent preoperative Gd-EOB-MRI and subsequent LT were included. Per-lesion imaging diagnoses of HCCs were made using four different guidelines (American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) guidelines, and patient allocation was determined according to Milan criteria (MC). Comparisons of per-lesion sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of patient allocation between guidelines were performed using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: For diagnosis of HCC, AASLD guideline showed highest specificity (97.4%), followed by EASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines (92.1% and 92.1%, p > 0.99 and = 0.15, respectively, in comparison to AASLD), while the specificity of APASL guideline was significantly lower than that of AASLD guideline (78.9% vs. 97.4%, p = 0.006). APASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines (75.9% and 65.6%) showed significantly higher sensitivities than AASLD/EASL guidelines (34.5% and 38.8%, respectively; all ps < 0.001). For organ allocation, KLCA-NCC guideline showed higher accuracy in selecting unsuitable candidates (with non-HCC malignancies or beyond MC HCCs) than EASL guideline (68.4% vs. 31.8%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For the diagnosis of HCCs using Gd-EOB-MRI, AASLD guideline provided the highest specificity, followed by EASL, KLCA-NCC, and APASL guidelines with statistically significant difference with only APASL guideline. KLCA-NCC guideline provided the most accurate selection of unsuitable LT candidates. KEY POINTS: • AASLD/LI-RADS showed the highest specificity, followed by EASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines. • APASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines allowed more sensitive diagnoses of HCCs. • KLCA-NCC more accurately classified patients not appropriate transplantation candidates than EASL.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gadoxetic acid; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver transplantation; Magnetic resonance imaging; Practice guideline