Literature DB >> 32999868

A New Diagnostic Criterion with Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI May Improve the Diagnostic Performance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Yi Wei1, Zheng Ye1, Yuan Yuan1, Zixing Huang1, Xiaocheng Wei2, Tong Zhang1, Shang Wan1, Hehan Tang1, Xiaopeng He3, Bin Song1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To prospectively establish and validate new diagnostic criterion (DC) for liver-specific contrast agents and further compared the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with conventional DC.
METHODS: Institutional Review Board approved and written informed consent were obtained for this prospective study. Two board-certified reviewers established the reference standard as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), non-HCC lesions by using marks on all cross-sectional MR images. Another 2 abdominal radiologists independently performed the marked lesion observations using 5 different DCs, including DC-1: arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and portal venous phase washout; DC-2: APHE and hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity; DC-3: APHE and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) hyperintensity; DC-4: HBP hypointensity and DWI hyperintensity; DC-5: HBP hypointensity, DWI hyperintensity and excluded these markedly T2 hyperintensity. Diagnostic performance of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for each imaging DC was calculated, per-lesion diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria were compared by using McNemars test.
RESULTS: A total of 215 patients were included (mean age 53.82 ± 11.24 years; range 24-82 years) with 265 hepatic nodules (175 HCCs and 90 non-HCCs). The DC-4 (93.71%; 164/175) and DC-5 (92.57%; 162/175) yielded the highest diagnostic sensitivity and was better than DC-1 (72.57%; 127/175), DC-2 (82.86%; 145/175), and DC-3 (82.29%; 144/175) (all p < 0.001). The specificity of DC-1 (94.44%; 85/90) was significantly higher than that with DC-2 (83.33%; 75/90), DC-3 (84.44%; 76/90), DC-4 (74.44%; 67/90), and DC-5 (82.22%; 74/90) (all p < 0.05). Additionally, the DC-4 and DC-5 achieved the highest area under curve value of 0.841 (95% CI 0.783-0.899) and 0.874 (95% CI 0.822-0.925).
CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of HBP hypointensity and DWI hyperintensity as a new DC for HCC enables a high diagnostic sensitivity and comparable specificity.
Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic criterion; Diagnostic performance; Gadoxetic acid enhanced; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Magnetic resonance imaging

Year:  2020        PMID: 32999868      PMCID: PMC7506240          DOI: 10.1159/000505696

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Cancer        ISSN: 1664-5553            Impact factor:   11.740


  31 in total

1.  Diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma ⩽3 cm with hepatocyte-specific contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Sang Hyun Choi; Jae Ho Byun; Young-Suk Lim; Eunsil Yu; So Jung Lee; So Yeon Kim; Hyung Jin Won; Yong Moon Shin; Pyo Nyun Kim
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 2.  LI-RADS 2017: An update.

Authors:  Ania Z Kielar; Victoria Chernyak; Mustafa R Bashir; Richard K Do; Kathryn J Fowler; Donald G Mitchell; Milena Cerny; Khaled M Elsayes; Cynthia Santillan; Aya Kamaya; Yuko Kono; Claude B Sirlin; An Tang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Julie K Heimbach; Laura M Kulik; Richard S Finn; Claude B Sirlin; Michael M Abecassis; Lewis R Roberts; Andrew X Zhu; M Hassan Murad; Jorge A Marrero
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 4.  Understanding LI-RADS: a primer for practical use.

Authors:  Cynthia S Santillan; An Tang; Irene Cruite; Amol Shah; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.266

5.  Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics.

Authors:  Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 6.  Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Therapeutic Guidelines and Medical Treatment.

Authors:  Masatoshi Kudo; Franco Trevisani; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Lorenza Rimassa
Journal:  Liver Cancer       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 11.740

Review 7.  The clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide: A concise review and comparison of current guidelines from 2001 to 2017.

Authors:  Peipei Song; Yulong Cai; Haowen Tang; Chuan Li; Jiwei Huang
Journal:  Biosci Trends       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 2.400

Review 8.  World-wide relative contribution of hepatitis B and C viruses in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Catherine de Martel; Delphine Maucort-Boulch; Martyn Plummer; Silvia Franceschi
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 9.  Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update.

Authors:  Tae-Hyung Kim; So Yeon Kim; An Tang; Jeong Min Lee
Journal:  Clin Mol Hepatol       Date:  2019-02-14

10.  Consensus report from the 8th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Christoph J Zech; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Thomas Berg; Hersh Chandarana; Gar-Yang Chau; Luigi Grazioli; Myeong-Jin Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Elmar M Merkle; Takamichi Murakami; Jens Ricke; Claude B Sirlin; Bin Song; Bachir Taouli; Kengo Yoshimitsu; Dow-Mu Koh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.