Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Yeun-Yoon Kim (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Young Kon Kim (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ji Hye Min (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Dong Ik Cha (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jong Man Kim (Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Gyu-Seong Choi (Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Soohyun Ahn (Department of Mathematics, Ajou University)
  • Received : 2020.06.24
  • Accepted : 2020.12.15
  • Published : 2021.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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]; p = 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; p = 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]; p = 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]; p = 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; p > 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim TH, Kim SY, Tang A, Lee JM. Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update. Clin Mol Hepatol 2019;25:245-263
  2. Tang A, Bashir MR, Corwin MT, Cruite I, Dietrich CF, Do RKG, et al. Evidence supporting LI-RADS major features for CT-and MR imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiology 2018;286:29-48
  3. 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
  4. Sofue K, Sirlin CB, Allen BC, Nelson RC, Berg CL, Bashir MR. How reader perception of capsule affects interpretation of washout in hypervascular liver nodules in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:1337-1345
  5. Stocker D, Becker AS, Barth BK, Skawran S, Kaniewska M, Fischer MA, et al. Does quantitative assessment of arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout improve LI-RADS v2018-based classification of liver lesions? Eur Radiol 2020;30:2922-2933
  6. Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A, Kielar AZ, Elsayes KM, Bashir MR, et al. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology 2018;289:816-830
  7. Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK, Kang TW, Lee SJ, Choi GS, 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
  8. Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A, Bollow M, Taupitz M, Frenzel T, et al. Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 1995;195:785-792
  9. Doo KW, Lee CH, Choi JW, Lee J, Kim KA, Park CM. "Pseudo washout" sign in high-flow hepatic hemangioma on gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI mimicking hypervascular tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:W490-W496
  10. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Jeon JH, Han JK, Choi BI. Noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acidenhanced MRI: can hypointensity on the hepatobiliary phase be used as an alternative to washout? Eur Radiol 2015;25:2859-2868
  11. Zech CJ, Ba-Ssalamah A, Berg T, Chandarana H, Chau GY, Grazioli L, et al. Consensus report from the 8th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Eur Radiol 2020;30:370-382
  12. Okamoto D, Yoshimitsu K, Nishie A, Tajima T, Asayama Y, Ishigami K, et al. 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 2012;81:1116-1121
  13. Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R, Schellenbeck M, Schumacher G, Balzer T, et al. Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1996;200:59-67
  14. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE, Hesse T, Balzer T, Tombach B, et al. Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 1997;7:275-280
  15. Lebert P, Adens-Fauquembergue M, Azahaf M, Gnemmi V, Behal H, Luciani A, et al. MRI for characterization of benign hepatocellular tumors on hepatobiliary phase: the added value of in-phase imaging and lesion-to-liver visual signal intensity ratio. Eur Radiol 2019;29:5742-5751
  16. Santillan C, Fowler K, Kono Y, Chernyak V. LI-RADS major features: CT, MRI with extracellular agents, and MRI with hepatobiliary agents. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018;43:75-81
  17. Allen BC, Ho LM, Jaffe TA, Miller CM, Mazurowski MA, Bashir MR. Comparison of visualization rates of LI-RADS version 2014 major features with IV gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoxetate disodium in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:1266-1272
  18. Agnello F, Dioguardi Burgio M, Picone D, Vernuccio F, Cabibbo G, Giannitrapani L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cirrhotic liver in the era of gadoxetic acid. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:103-111
  19. Tamada T, Ito K, Yamamoto A, Yasokawa K, Higaki A, Kanki A, et al. Simple method for evaluating the degree of liver parenchymal enhancement in the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37:1115-1121
  20. Kim YN, Song JS, Moon WS, Hwang HP, Kim YK. Intraindividual comparison of hepatocellular carcinoma imaging features on contrast-enhanced computed tomography, gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Acta Radiol 2018;59:639-648
  21. Son J, Hwang SH, Park S, Han K, Chung YE, Choi JY, et al. Imaging features of hepatocellular carcinoma: quantitative and qualitative comparison between MRI-enhanced with GdEOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Invest Radiol 2019;54:494-499
  22. Goodwin MD, Dobson JE, Sirlin CB, Lim BG, Stella DL. Diagnostic challenges and pitfalls in MR imaging with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. Radiographics 2011;31:1547-1568
  23. Cereser L, Furlan A, Bagatto D, Girometti R, Como G, Avellini C, et al. Comparison of portal venous and delayed phases of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging study of cirrhotic liver for the detection of contrast washout of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010;34:706-711
  24. Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, Hussain HK, Pomfret EA, Bruix J. New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 2013;266:376-382
  25. Rimola J, Forner A, Tremosini S, Reig M, Vilana R, Bianchi L, et al. Non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 2 cm in cirrhosis. Diagnostic accuracy assessing fat, capsule and signal intensity at dynamic MRI. J Hepatol 2012;56:1317-1323
  26. Grazioli L, Olivetti L, Mazza G, Bondioni MP. MR imaging of hepatocellular adenomas and differential diagnosis dilemma. Int J Hepatol 2013;2013:374170
  27. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Jeon JH, Han JK. 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 2019;29:1724-1732
  28. Kim DH, Choi SH, Kim SY, Kim MJ, Lee SS, Byun JH. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma: value of washout in transitional and hepatobiliary phases. Radiology 2019;291:651-657
  29. Heverhagen JT. Noise measurement and estimation in MR imaging experiments. Radiology 2007;245:638-639