Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (대한자기공명의과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic Image Feature and Performance of CT and Gadoxetic Acid Disodium-Enhanced MRI in Distinction of Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma from Hepatocellular Carcinoma

  • Kim, Hyunghu (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seung-seob (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Sunyoung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Myeongjee (Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Myeong-Jin (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2021.01.07
  • Accepted : 2021.05.11
  • Published : 2021.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To find diagnostic image features, to compare diagnostic performance of multiphase CT versus gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI (GAD-MRI), and to evaluate the impact of analyzing Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) imaging features, for distinguishing combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (CHC) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: Ninety-six patients with pathologically proven CHC (n = 48) or HCC (n = 48), diagnosed June 2008 to May 2018 were retrospectively analyzed in random order by three radiologists with different experience levels. In the first analysis, the readers independently determined the probability of CHC based on their own knowledge and experiences. In the second analysis, they evaluated imaging features defined in LI-RADS 2018. Area under the curve (AUC) values for CHC diagnosis were compared between CT and MRI, and between the first and second analyses. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen's weighted κ values. Results: Targetoid LR-M image features showed better specificities and positive predictive values (PPV) than the others. Among them, rim arterial phase hyperenhancement had the highest specificity and PPV. Average sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values were higher for MRI than for CT in both the first (P = 0.008, 0.005, 0.002, respectively) and second (P = 0.017, 0.026, 0.036) analyses. Interobserver agreements were higher for MRI in both analyses (κ = 0.307 for CT, κ = 0.332 for MRI in the first analysis; κ = 0.467 for CT, κ = 0.531 for MRI in the second analysis), with greater agreement in the second analysis for both CT (P = 0.001) and MRI (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Rim arterial phase hyperenhancement on GAD-MRI can be a good indicator suggesting CHC more than HCC. GAD-MRI may provide greater accuracy than CT for distinguishing CHC from HCC. Interobserver agreement can be improved for both CT and MRI by analyzing LI-RADS imaging features.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by faculty research grant 6-2019-0062 of Yonsei University College of Medicine for 2019.

References

  1. Brunt E, Aishima S, Clavien PA, et al. cHCC-CCA: consensus terminology for primary liver carcinomas with both hepatocytic and cholangiocytic differentation. Hepatology 2018;68:113-126 https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29789
  2. Ramai D, Ofosu A, Lai JK, Reddy M, Adler DG. Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based retrospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:1496-1501 https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000000326
  3. Cunha GM, Tamayo-Murillo DE, Fowler KJ. LI-RADS and transplantation: challenges and controversies. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021;46:29-42 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02311-w
  4. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018; 69:182-236 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019
  5. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, et al. Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the study of liver diseases. Hepatology 2018;68:723-750 https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29913
  6. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int 2017;11:317-370 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-017-9799-9
  7. Fraum TJ, Cannella R, Ludwig DR, et al. Assessment of primary liver carcinomas other than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with LI-RADS v2018: comparison of the LI-RADS target population to patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors. Eur Radiol 2020;30:996-1007 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06448-6
  8. Kim MJ, Lee S, An C. Problematic lesions in cirrhotic liver mimicking hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2019;29:5101-5110 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06030-0
  9. Potretzke TA, Tan BR, Doyle MB, Brunt EM, Heiken JP, Fowler KJ. Imaging features of biphenotypic primary liver carcinoma (hepatocholangiocarcinoma) and the potential to mimic hepatocellular carcinoma: LI-RADS analysis of CT and MRI features in 61 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:25-31 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14997
  10. Jeon SK, Joo I, Lee DH, et al. Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: LI-RADS v2017 categorisation for differential diagnosis and prognostication on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2019;29:373-382 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5605-x
  11. Lee HS, Kim MJ, An C. How to utilize LR-M features of the LI-RADS to improve the diagnosis of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma on gadoxetate-enhanced MRI? Eur Radiol 2019;29:2408-2416 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5893-1
  12. Kim YY, Kim MJ, Kim EH, Roh YH, An C. Hepatocellular carcinoma versus other hepatic malignancy in cirrhosis: performance of LI-RADS version 2018. Radiology 2019;291:72-80 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019181995
  13. Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003;229:3-8 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291010898
  14. Gwet K. Computing inter-rater reliability with the SAS system. Stat Methods Inter-rater Reliability Assess 2002;3:1-16
  15. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 2008;15:647-661 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2007.12.015
  16. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-731 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199209000-00015
  17. Obuchowski NA Jr, Rockette HE Jr. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests an anova approach with dependent observations. Commun Stat - Simul Comput 1995; 24:285-308 https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919508813243
  18. Baek CK, Choi JY, Kim KA, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: a comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and multiphasic MDCT. Clin Radiol 2012;67:148-156 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.08.011
  19. Semaan S, Vietti Violi N, Lewis S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma detection in liver cirrhosis: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast vs. gadoxetic acid. Eur Radiol 2020;30:1020-1030 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06458-4
  20. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Lee YJ, Lee KB, Han JK. Added value of sequentially performed gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI for the diagnosis of small (10-19 mm) or atypical hepatic observations at contrast-enhanced CT: a prospective comparison. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:574-587 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26199
  21. Chung YE, Park JY, Choi J-Y, Kim M-J, Park MS, Seong J. Noninvasive biomarker for predicting treatment response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Investig Magn Reson Imaging 2019;23:351-360 https://doi.org/10.13104/imri.2019.23.4.351
  22. Park IK, Yu J-S, Cho E-S, Kim JH, Chung J-J. Pseudoglandular formation in hepatocellular carcinoma determines apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion-weighted MRI. Investig Magn Reson Imaging 2018;22:79-85 https://doi.org/10.13104/imri.2018.22.2.79
  23. Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK, et al. Prospective intraindividual comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetic acid and extracellular contrast for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinomas using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. Hepatology 2018;68:2254-2266 https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30122
  24. Lee S, Kim MJ, Kim SS, et al. Retrospective comparison of EASL 2018 and LI-RADS 2018 for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Hepatol Int 2020;14:70-79 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-019-10002-3
  25. Fraum TJ, Tsai R, Rohe E, et al. Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from other hepatic malignancies in patients at risk: diagnostic performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2014. Radiology 2018;286:158-172 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170114
  26. Fowler KJ, Potretzke TA, Hope TA, Costa EA, Wilson SR. LI-RADS M (LR-M): definite or probable malignancy, not specific for hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018;43:149-157 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1196-2
  27. Ludwig DR, Fraum TJ, Cannella R, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) versus non-HCC: accuracy and reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2018. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019;44:2116-2132 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01948-x