Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Prospective evaluation of Gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography for hepatocellular carcinoma detection and transplant eligibility assessment with explant histopathology correlation.


ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) and contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection and liver transplant (LT) eligibility assessment in cirrhotic patients with explant histopathology correlation.

Methods

In this prospective, single-institution ethics-approved study, 101 cirrhotic patients were enrolled consecutively from the pre-LT clinic with written informed consent. Patients underwent CECT and EOB-MRI alternately every 3 months until LT or study exclusion. Two blinded radiologists independently scored hepatic lesions on CECT and EOB-MRI utilizing the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) version 2018. Liver explant histopathology was the reference standard. Pre-LT eligibility accuracies with EOB-MRI and CECT as per Milan criteria (MC) were assessed in reference to post-LT explant histopathology. Lesion-level and patient-level statistical analyses were performed.

Results

Sixty patients (49 men; age 33-72 years) underwent LT successfully. One hundred four non-treated HCC and 42 viable HCC in previously treated HCC were identified at explant histopathology. For LR-4/5 category lesions, EOB-MRI had a higher pooled sensitivity (86.7% versus 75.3%, p <  0.001) but lower specificity (84.6% versus 100%, p <  0.001) compared to CECT. EOB-MRI had a sensitivity twice that of CECT (65.9% versus 32.2%, p <  0.001) when all HCC identified at explant histopathology were included in the analysis instead of imaging visible lesions only. Disregarding the hepatobiliary phase resulted in a significant drop in EOB-MRI performance (86.7 to 72.8%, p <  0.001). EOB-MRI had significantly lower pooled sensitivity and specificity versus CECT in the LR5 category with lesion size < 2 cm (50% versus 79%, p = 0.002 and 88.9% versus 100%, p = 0.002). EOB-MRI had higher sensitivity (84.8% versus 75%, p <  0.037) compared to CECT for detecting < 2 cm viable HCC in treated lesions. Accuracies of LT eligibility assessment were comparable between EOB-MRI (90-91.7%, p = 0.156) and CECT (90-95%, p = 0.158).

Conclusion

EOB-MRI had superior sensitivity for HCC detection; however, with lower specificity compared to CECT in LR4/5 category lesions while it was inferior to CECT in the LR5 category under 2 cm. The accuracy for LT eligibility assessment based on MC was not significantly different between EOB-MRI and CECT.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03342677 , Registered: November 17, 2017.

SUBMITTER: Jhaveri KS 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9960413 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Prospective evaluation of Gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography for hepatocellular carcinoma detection and transplant eligibility assessment with explant histopathology correlation.

Jhaveri Kartik S KS   Babaei Jandaghi Ali A   Bhayana Rajesh R   Elbanna Khaled Y KY   Espin-Garcia Osvaldo O   Fischer Sandra E SE   Ghanekar Anand A   Sapisochin Gonzalo G  

Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society 20230225 1


<h4>Background</h4>We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) and contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection and liver transplant (LT) eligibility assessment in cirrhotic patients with explant histopathology correlation.<h4>Methods</h4>In this prospective, single-institution ethics-approved study, 101 cirrhotic patients were enrolled consecutively from the pre-LT clinic with written informed  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC6923212 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC2709495 | biostudies-other
| S-EPMC10101397 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3551502 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC11678784 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6280687 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4616540 | biostudies-other
| S-EPMC8322500 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC5283725 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9305377 | biostudies-literature