4.5 Article

Double-contrast MRI for accurate staging of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
Volume 190, Issue 1, Pages 47-57

Publisher

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2595

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; liver; MRI; sensitivity; staging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a double-contrast MRI protocol in staging of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This cross-sectional study was performed at a tertiary liver care center. Forty-eight patients with cirrhosis underwent double-contrast MRI for clinical care and liver transplantation. For each MRI examination, superparamagnetic iron oxide was infused, and 2D T2*-weighted spoiled gradient-recalled echo and T2-weighted echo-train spin-echo MR images were obtained for assessment of phagocytic function. Immediately afterward, a low-molecular-weight gadolinium compound was injected, and 3D T1-weighted spoiled gradient-recalled echo images were acquired dynamically for assessment of vascularity. Two blinded radiologists independently reviewed all MR images and assigned per-lesion and per-patient cancer confidence scores to determine the American Liver Tumor Study Group tumor stage. The imaging-based cancer scores and tumor stages were correlated with pathology reports. Performance parameters were computed for imaging-based measurements. RESULTS. Of the 48 study subjects, 25 had HCC (three, T1; 18, T2; one, T3; one, T4a; two, T4b). In total, there were 37 HCC nodules. The accuracy of MRI in prediction of pathologic tumor stage was 81-85% depending on the radiologist. Per-patient and per-lesion sensitivity in the diagnosis of HCC were 96% and 81% for one radiologist and 96% and 89% for the other. CONCLUSION. A double-contrast MRI protocol has high accuracy in staging of HCC in patients with cirrhosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available