• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.23 no.7
• /
• pp.697-719
• /
• 2022

Gadoxetate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used in clinical practice for liver imaging. For optimal use, we must understand both its advantages and limitations. This article is the outcome of an online advisory board meeting and subsequent discussions by a multidisciplinary group of experts on liver diseases across the Asia-Pacific region, first held on September 28, 2020. Here, we review the technical considerations for the use of gadoxetate, its current role in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and its relevance in consensus guidelines for HCC imaging diagnosis. In the latter part of this review, we examine recent evidence evaluating the impact of gadoxetate on clinical outcomes on a continuum from diagnosis to treatment decision-making and follow-up. In conclusion, we outline the potential future roles of gadoxetate MRI based on an evolving understanding of the clinical utility of this contrast agent in the management of patients at risk of, or with, HCC.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.64-75
• /
• 2016

Purpose: In order to evaluate the relationship between the dose to the liver parenchyma and focal liver reaction (FLR) after stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR), we suggest a novel method using a three-dimensional dose distribution and change in signal intensity of gadoxetate disodium-gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) hepatobiliary phase images. Materials and Methods: In our method, change of the signal intensity between the pretreatment and follow-up hepatobiliary phase images of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI was calculated and then threshold dose (TD) for developing FLR was obtained from correlation of dose with the change of the signal intensity. For validation of the method, TDs for six patients, who had been treated for liver cancer with SABR with 45-60 Gy in 3 fractions, were calculated using the method, and we evaluated concordance between volume enclosed by isodose of TD by the method and volume identified as FLR by a physician. Results: The dose to normal liver was correlated with change in signal intensity between pretreatment and follow-up MRI with a median $R^2$ of 0.935 (range, 0.748 to 0.985). The median TD by the method was 23.5 Gy (range, 18.3 to 39.4 Gy). The median value of concordance was 84.5% (range, 44.7% to 95.9%). Conclusion: Our method is capable of providing a quantitative evaluation of the relationship between dose and intensity changes on follow-up MRI, as well as determining individual TD for developing FLR. We expect our method to provide better information about the individual relationship between dose and FLR in radiotherapy for liver cancer.

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.354-365
• /
• 2021

Objective: To investigate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and its role as a second-line imaging modality after gadoxetate-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among at risk observations. Materials and Methods: We prospectively enrolled participants at risk of HCC with treatment-naïve solid hepatic observations (≥ 1 cm) of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LR)-3/4/5/M during surveillance and performed Gd-EOB-MRI. A total of one hundred and three participants with 103 hepatic observations (mean size, 28.2 ± 24.5 mm; HCCs [n = 79], non-HCC malignancies [n = 15], benign [n = 9]; diagnosed by pathology [n = 57], or noninvasive method [n = 46]) were included in this study. The participants underwent CEUS with sulfur hexafluoride. Arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and washout on Gd-EOB-MRI and CEUS were evaluated. The distinctive washout in CEUS was defined as mild washout 60 seconds after contrast injection. The diagnostic ability of Gd-EOB-MRI and of CEUS as a second-line modality for HCC were determined according to the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the Korean Liver Cancer Association and National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) guidelines. The diagnostic abilities of both imaging modalities were compared using the McNemar's test. Results: The sensitivity of CEUS (60.8%) was lower than that of Gd-EOB-MRI (72.2%, p = 0.06 by EASL; 86.1%, p < 0.01 by KLCA-NCC); however, the specificity was 100%. By performing CEUS on the inconclusive observations in Gd-EOB-MRI, HCCs without APHE (n = 10) or washout (n = 12) on Gd-EOB-MRI further presented APHE (80.0%, 8/10) or distinctive washout (66.7%, 8/12) on CEUS, and more HCCs were diagnosed than with Gd-EOB-MRI alone (sensitivity: 72.2% vs. 83.5% by EASL, p < 0.01; 86.1% vs. 91.1% by KCLA-NCC, p = 0.04). There were no false-positive cases for HCC on CEUS. Conclusion: The addition of CEUS to Gd-EOB-MRI as a second-line diagnostic modality increases the frequency of HCC diagnosis without changing the specificities.

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.22 no.10
• /
• pp.1628-1639
• /
• 2021

Objective: Based on the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 (LI-RADS, v2018), this study aimed to analyze LR-5 diagnostic performance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) when threshold growth as a major feature is replaced by a more HCC-specific ancillary feature, as well as the frequency of threshold growth in HCC and non-HCC malignancies and its association with tumor size. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included treatment-naive patients who underwent gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRIs for focal hepatic lesions and surgery between January 2009 and December 2016. The frequency of major and ancillary features was evaluated for HCC and non-HCC malignancies, and the LR-category was assessed. Ancillary features that were significantly more prevalent in HCC were then used to either replace threshold growth or were added as additional major features, and the diagnostic performance of the readjusted LR category was compared to the LI-RADS v2018. Results: A total of 1013 observations were analyzed. Unlike arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout, or enhancing capsule which were more prevalent in HCCs than in non-HCC malignancies (521/616 vs. 18/58, 489/616 vs. 19/58, and 181/616 vs. 5/58, respectively; p < 0.001), threshold growth was more prevalent in non-HCC malignancies than in HCCs (11/23 vs. 17/119; p < 0.001). The mean size of non-HCC malignancies showing threshold growth was significantly smaller than that of non-HCC malignancies without threshold growth (22.2 mm vs. 42.9 mm, p = 0.040). Similar results were found for HCCs; however, the difference was not significant (26.8 mm vs. 33.1 mm, p = 0.184). Additionally, Fat-in-nodule was more frequent in HCCs than in non-HCC malignancies (99/616 vs. 2/58, p = 0.010). When threshold growth and fat-in-nodule were considered as ancillary and major features, respectively, LR-5 sensitivity (73.2% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.289) and specificity (98.2% vs. 98.5%, p > 0.999) were comparable to the LI-RADS v2018. Conclusion: Threshold growth is not a significant diagnostic indicator of HCC and is more common in non-HCC malignancies. The diagnostic performance of LR-5 was comparable when threshold growth was recategorized as an ancillary feature and replaced by a more HCC-specific ancillary feature.