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

被引:3
作者
Kim, Yeun-Yoon [1 ]
Kim, Young Kon [1 ]
Min, Ji Hye [1 ]
Cha, Dong Ik [1 ]
Kim, Jong Man [2 ]
Choi, Gyu-Seong [2 ]
Ahn, Soohyun [3 ]
机构
[1] Ajou Univ, Ctr Imaging Sci, Dept Radiol, 81 Irwon ro, Suwon 06351, South Korea
[2] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Sch Med, Samsung Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Ajou Univ, Dept Math, Suwon, South Korea
关键词
Gadoxetic acid; Extracellular contrast; Magnetic resonance imaging; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Washout; GD-EOB-DTPA; RADS MAJOR FEATURES; NONINVASIVE DIAGNOSIS; CIRRHOTIC LIVER; ENHANCED MRI; PHASE; CAPSULE; RISK; CT;
D O I
10.3348/kjr.2020.1143
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:725 / 734
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Value of Washout in Transitional and Hepatobiliary Phases
    Kim, Dong Hwan
    Choi, Sang Hyun
    Kim, So Yeon
    Kim, Min-Ju
    Lee, Seung Soo
    Byun, Jae Ho
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (03) : 651 - 657
  • [22] Imaging characteristics of hepatocellular carcinoma using the hepatobiliary contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA
    Jung, G
    Breuer, J
    Poll, LW
    Koch, JA
    Balzer, T
    Chang, S
    Mödder, U
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2006, 47 (01) : 15 - 23
  • [23] Comparative analysis of the performance of hepatobiliary agents in depicting MRI features of microvascular infiltration in hepatocellular carcinoma
    Yao, Wei-Wei
    Zhang, Han-Wen
    Ma, Yu-Pei
    Lee, Jia-Min
    Lee, Rui-ting
    Wang, Yu-li
    Liu, Xiao-lei
    Shen, Xin-Ping
    Huang, Biao
    Lin, Fan
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2024, 49 (07) : 2242 - 2249
  • [24] Diagnostic accuracy of MRI with extracellular vs. hepatobiliary contrast material for detection of residual hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional treatment
    Jordi Rimola
    Matthew S. Davenport
    Peter S. Liu
    Theodore Brown
    Jorge A. Marrero
    Barbara J. McKenna
    Hero K. Hussain
    Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 549 - 558
  • [25] What is the "washout" of hepatocellular carcinoma as observed on the equilibrium phase CT?: consideration based on the concept of extracellular volume fraction
    Sakamoto, Keiko
    Tanaka, Shinji
    Sato, Keisuke
    Ito, Emi
    Nishiyama, Marie
    Urakawa, Hiroshi
    Arima, Hisatomi
    Yoshimitsu, Kengo
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 40 (11) : 1148 - 1155
  • [26] EFFICACY OF CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND WASHOUT RATE IN PREDICTING HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA DIFFERENTIATION
    Feng, Yan
    Qin, Xia-Chuan
    Luo, Yan
    Li, Yong-Zhong
    Zhou, Xiang
    ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2015, 41 (06) : 1553 - 1560
  • [27] LI-RADS v2014 categorization of hepatocellular carcinoma: Intraindividual comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI
    Song, Ji Soo
    Choi, Eun Jung
    Hwang, Seung Bae
    Hwang, Hong Pil
    Choi, HyeMi
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (01) : 401 - 410
  • [28] Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Extracellular Contrast Detects Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Greater Accuracy Than With Gadoxetic Acid or Computed Tomography
    Min, Ji Hye
    Kim, Jong Man
    Kim, Young Kon
    Cha, Dong Ik
    Kang, Tae Wook
    Kim, Honsoul
    Choi, Gyu Seong
    Choi, Seo-Youn
    Ahn, Soohyun
    CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2020, 18 (09) : 2091 - +
  • [29] 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
    Cereser, Lorenzo
    Furlan, Alessandro
    Bagatto, Daniele
    Girometti, Rossano
    Como, Giuseppe
    Avellini, Claudio
    Orsaria, Maria
    Zuiani, Chiara
    Bazzocchi, Massimo
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2010, 34 (05) : 706 - 711
  • [30] Additional value of 10-min far-delayed phase in extracellular contrast agent-enhanced MRI for diagnostic performance of hepatocellular carcinoma based on LI-RADS v2018
    Wang, Jiahui
    Sun, Wei
    Qiu, Qiansai
    Dong, Sanyuan
    Chen, Xiaoshan
    Wang, Wentao
    Yang, Yutao
    Rao, Shengxiang
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2025, 8 (01) : 24 - 34