3.9 Article

HCC screening: assessment of an abbreviated non-contrast MRI protocol

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s41747-019-0126-1

关键词

Carcinoma (hepatocellular); Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Liver cirrhosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) guidelines recommend ultrasound screening in high-risk patients. However, in some patients, ultrasound image quality is suboptimal due to factors such as hepatic steatosis, cirrhosis, and confounding lesions. Our aim was to investigate an abbreviated non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (aNC-MRI) protocol as a potential alternative screening method. Methods A retrospective study was performed using consecutive liver MRI studies performed over 3 years, with set exclusion criteria. The unenhanced T2-weighted, T1-weighted Dixon, and diffusion-weighted sequences were extracted from MRI studies with a known diagnosis. Each anonymised aNC-MRI study was read by three radiologists who stratified each study into either return to 6 monthly screening or investigate with a full contrast-enhanced MRI study. Results A total of 188 patients were assessed; 28 of them had 42 malignant lesions, classified as Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 4, 5, or M. On a per-patient basis, aNC-MRI had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95-98%), not significantly different in patients with steatosis (99%, 95% CI 93-100%) and no steatosis (97%, 95% CI 94-98%). Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI 75-91%) and 93% (95% CI 90-95%). Conclusion Our aNC-MRI HCC screening protocol demonstrated high specificity (93%) and NPV (97%), with a sensitivity (85%) comparable to that of ultrasound and gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI. This screening method was robust to hepatic steatosis and may be considered an alternative in the case of suboptimal ultrasound image quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据