» Articles » PMID: 33660458

Intraindividual Comparison of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Washout Between MRIs with Hepatobiliary and Extracellular Contrast Agents

Overview
Journal Korean J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 Mar 4
PMID 33660458
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To intraindividually compare hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) washout between MRIs using hepatobiliary agent (HBA) and extracellular agent (ECA).

Materials And Methods: This study included 114 prospectively enrolled patients with chronic liver disease (mean age, 55 ± 9 years; 94 men) who underwent both HBA-MRI and ECA-MRI before surgical resection for HCC between November 2016 and May 2019. For 114 HCCs, the lesion-to-liver visual signal intensity ratio (SIR) using a 5-point scale (-2 to +2) was evaluated in each phase. Washout was defined as negative visual SIR with temporal reduction of visual SIR from the arterial phase. Illusional washout (IW) was defined as a visual SIR of 0 with an enhancing capsule. The frequency of washout and MRI sensitivity for HCC using LR-5 or its modifications were compared between HBA-MRI and ECA-MRI. Subgroup analysis was performed according to lesion size (< 20 mm or ≥ 20 mm).

Results: The frequency of portal venous phase (PP) washout with HBA-MRI was comparable to that of delayed phase (DP) washout with ECA-MRI (77.2% [88/114] vs. 68.4% [78/114]; = 0.134). The frequencies were also comparable when IW was allowed (79.8% [91/114] for HBA-MRI vs. 81.6% [93/114] for ECA-MRI; = 0.845). The sensitivities for HCC of LR-5 (using PP or DP washout) were comparable between HBA-MRI and ECA-MRI (78.1% [89/114] vs. 73.7% [84/114]; = 0.458). In HCCs < 20 mm, the sensitivity of LR-5 was higher on HBA-MRI than on ECA-MRI (70.8% [34/48] vs. 50.0% [24/48]; = 0.034). The sensitivity was similar to each other if IW was added to LR-5 (72.9% [35/48] for HBA-MRI vs. 70.8% [34/48] for ECA-MRI; > 0.999).

Conclusion: Extracellular phase washout for HCC diagnosis was comparable between MRIs with both contrast agents, except for tumors < 20 mm. Adding IW could improve the sensitivity for HCC on ECA-MRI in tumors < 20 mm.

Citing Articles

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

Nadarevic T, Colli A, Giljaca V, Fraquelli M, Casazza G, Manzotti C Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 5:CD014798.

PMID: 35521901 PMC: 9074390. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014798.pub2.


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

Park J, Lee J, Kim T, Yoon J Clin Mol Hepatol. 2021; 28(3):362-379.

PMID: 34955003 PMC: 9293611. DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2021.0361.

References
1.
Kim Y, Kim M, Kim E, Roh Y, An C . Hepatocellular Carcinoma versus Other Hepatic Malignancy in Cirrhosis: Performance of LI-RADS Version 2018. Radiology. 2019; 291(1):72-80. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181995. View

2.
Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A, Bollow M, Taupitz M, Frenzel T . Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1995; 195(3):785-92. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.195.3.7754011. View

3.
Okamoto D, Yoshimitsu K, Nishie A, Tajima T, Asayama Y, Ishigami K . Enhancement pattern analysis of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma on dynamic MR imaging with histopathological correlation: validity of portal phase imaging for predicting tumor grade. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 81(6):1116-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.056. View

4.
Sofue K, Sirlin C, Allen B, Nelson R, Berg C, Bashir M . How reader perception of capsule affects interpretation of washout in hypervascular liver nodules in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015; 43(6):1337-45. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25094. View

5.
Joo I, Lee J, Lee D, Jeon J, Han J . Retrospective validation of a new diagnostic criterion for hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: can hypointensity on the hepatobiliary phase be used as an alternative to washout with the aid of ancillary features?. Eur Radiol. 2018; 29(4):1724-1732. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5727-1. View