Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 1013–1021 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance elastography can predict development of hepatocellular carcinoma with longitudinally acquired two-point data

  • Shintaro Ichikawa
  • Utaroh MotosugiEmail author
  • Nobuyuki Enomoto
  • Hiroshi Onishi
Gastrointestinal
  • 146 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the usefulness of longitudinal observation of liver stiffness measured using magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to stratify the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed data for 161 patients with chronic liver disease using the following inclusion criteria: two MRE examinations separated by at least a 12-month interval, no history of HCC, no development of HCC between the two examinations and availability of laboratory results. Liver stiffness was classified as low (< 3 kPa), moderate (3–4.7 kPa) or high (> 4.7 kPa). The patients were divided into three groups according to sequential changes in liver stiffness as follows: high on the first MRE (group A, n = 60), low on both MRE examinations (group C, n = 36) and other combinations (group B, n = 65). Cox analyses and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to determine the risk of developing HCC.

Results

Forty-seven patients (29.2%) developed HCC during follow-up (46.7% [28/60] in group A, 26.2% [17/65] in group B, and 5.6% [2/36] in group C). There was a significant difference in the rate of development of HCC between groups A (45.1%), B (26.1%) and C (12.4%) at 3 years (p = 0.0002). The independent risk factors for development of HCC were group A classification, age and a high alanine aminotransferase level (risk ratio 1.018–6.030; p = 0.0028–0.0268).

Conclusion

Longitudinal observation of liver stiffness using MRE can stratify the risk of HCC during follow-up of chronic liver disease.

Key Points

• The results of MRE can stratify the risk for development of HCC during follow-up in patients with chronic liver disease.

• Patients with chronic liver disease and high liver stiffness (> 4.7 kPa) on a previous MRE examination are at high risk for developing HCC, regardless of current liver stiffness.

• Management of patients with chronic liver disease becomes more appropriate using longitudinally acquired two-point MRE data.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma Magnetic resonance elastography Risk assessment Observation 

Abbreviations

ALT

Alanine aminotransferase

DAA

Direct-acting antiviral

MRE

Magnetic resonance elastography

PIVKA-II

Protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonists-II

SVR

Sustained virological response

Notes

Funding:

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hiroshi Onishi.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in an earlier report (Ichikawa S, et al. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46(2):375-382.). Data of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for 42 patients in this study were included in the paper; however, the results for two MRE examinations for these patients have not been reported previously.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Observational

• Performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5640_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5.3 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 5467 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wong VW, Janssen HL (2015) Can we use HCC risk scores to individualize surveillance in chronic hepatitis B infection? J Hepatol 63:722–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sugino Y, Yamakado K, Yamanaka T et al (2017) Role of curative treatment in patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Jpn J Radiol 35:254–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Takyar V, Etzion O, Heller T et al (2017) Complications of percutaneous liver biopsy with Klatskin needles: a 36-year single-centre experience. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 45:744–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chindamo MC, Nunes-Pannain VL, Araújo-Neto JM et al (2015) Intermediate fibrosis staging in hepatitis C: a problem not overcome by optimal samples or pathologists' expertise. Ann Hepatol 14:652–657Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang Z, Zheng W, Zhang YJ et al (2017) Assessing hepatic fibrosis using 2-D shear wave elastography in patients with liver tumors: a prospective single-center study. Ultrasound Med Biol 43:2522–2529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang T, Shao C, Zhang G, Xu Y (2017) Real-time elastography (RTE): a valuable sonography-based non-invasive method for the assessment of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:2632–2638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masuzaki R, Tateishi R, Yoshida H et al (2008) Risk assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis C patients by transient elastography. J Clin Gastroenterol 42:839–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park MS, Han KH, Kim SU (2014) Non-invasive prediction of development of hepatocellular carcinoma using transient elastography in patients with chronic liver disease. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 8:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Enomoto N, Matsuda M, Onishi H (2017) Noninvasive hepatic fibrosis staging using MR elastography: the usefulness of the bayesian prediction method. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yin M, Glaser KJ, Talwalkar JA, Chen J, Manduca A, Ehman RL (2016) Hepatic MR elastography: clinical performance in a series of 1377 consecutive examinations. Radiology 278:114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim SU, Kim BK, Park JY et al (2016) Transient elastography is superior to FIB-4 in assessing the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e3434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Koshiishi T et al (2013) Liver stiffness measured by magnetic resonance elastography as a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma: a preliminary case-control study. Eur Radiol 23:156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS et al (2018) AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 67:358–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver (2018) EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019
  15. 15.
    Rouviere O, Yin M, Dresner MA et al (2006) MR elastography of the liver: preliminary results. Radiology 240:440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ et al (2007) Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:1207–1213.e2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manduca A, Oliphant TE, Dresner MA et al (2001) Magnetic resonance elastography: non-invasive mapping of tissue elasticity. Med Image Anal 5:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Talwalkar JA, Yin M, Venkatesh S et al (2009) Feasibility of in vivo MR elastographic splenic stiffness measurements in the assessment of portal hypertension. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang JH, Chuah SK, Lu SN et al (2014) Baseline and serial liver stiffness measurement in prediction of portal hypertension progression for patients with compensated cirrhosis. Liver Int 34:1340–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coulon S, Heindryckx F, Geerts A, Van Steenkiste C, Colle I, Van Vlierberghe H (2011) Angiogenesis in chronic liver disease and its complications. Liver Int 31:146–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Machado MV, Cortez-Pinto H (2015) Proangiogenic factors in the development of HCC in alcoholic cirrhosis. Clin Res Gastroenterol Hepatol 39(Suppl 1):S104–S108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartolomeo N, Trerotoli P, Serio G (2011) Progression of liver cirrhosis to HCC: an application of hidden Markov model. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guo J, Büning C, Schott E et al (2015) In vivo abdominal magnetic resonance elastography for the assessment of portal hypertension before and after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt implantation. Invest Radiol 50:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morisaka H, Motosugi U, Ichikawa S et al (2015) Association of splenic MR elastographic findings with gastroesophageal varices in patients with chronic liver disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Asrani SK, Talwalkar JA, Kamath PS et al (2014) Role of magnetic resonance elastography in compensated and decompensated liver disease. J Hepatol 60:934–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Takamura T, Motosugi U, Ichikawa S et al (2016) Usefulness of MR elastography for detecting clinical progression of cirrhosis from child-pugh class A to B in patients with type C viral hepatitis. J Magn Reson Imaging 44:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thompson SM, Wang J, Chandan VS et al (2017) MR elastography of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation of tumor stiffness with histopathology features—preliminary findings. Magn Reson Imaging 37:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hennedige TP, Hallinan JT, Leung FP et al (2016) Comparison of magnetic resonance elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions. Eur Radiol 26:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gordic S, Ayache JB, Kennedy P et al (2017) Value of tumor stiffness measured with MR elastography for assessment of response of hepatocellular carcinoma to locoregional therapy. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:1685–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee DH, Lee JM, Yi NJ et al (2017) Hepatic stiffness measurement by using MR elastography: prognostic values after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 27:1713–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crespo G, Castro-Narro G, García-Juárez I et al (2016) Usefulness of liver stiffness measurement during acute cellular rejection in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 22:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anthony PP, Ishak KG, Nayak NC et al (1978) The morphology of cirrhosis. Recommendations on definition, nomenclature, and classification by a working group sponsored by the World Health Organization. J Clin Pathol 31:395–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D'Amico G, Garcia-Tsao G, Pagliaro L (2006) Natural history and prognostic indicators of survival in cirrhosis: a systematic review of 118 studies. J Hepatol 44:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shiratori Y, Imazeki F, Moriyama M et al (2000) Histologic improvement of fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C who have sustained response to interferon therapy. Ann Intern Med 132:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim SU, Oh HJ, Wanless IR et al (2012) The Laennec staging system for histological sub-classification of cirrhosis is useful for stratification of prognosis in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Hepatol 57:556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang W, Li J, Pan R et al (2015) Association of the Laennec staging system with degree of cirrhosis, clinical stage and liver function. Hepatol Int 9:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim SU, Kim JK, Park YN et al (2012) Discordance between liver biopsy and Fibroscan® in assessing liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis b: risk factors and influence of necroinflammation. PLoS One 7:e32233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krawczyk M, Ligocka J, Ligocki M et al (2017) Does transient elastography correlate with liver fibrosis in patients with PSC? Laennec score-based analysis of explanted livers. Scand J Gastroenterol 52:1407–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yoshida H, Shiratori Y, Moriyama M et al (1999) Interferon therapy reduces the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: national surveillance program of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C in Japan. IHIT Study Group. Inhibition of Hepatocarcinogenesis by Interferon Therapy. Ann Intern Med 131:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tran SA, Le A, Zhao C et al (2008) Rate of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance remains low for a large, real-life cohort of patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 5:e000192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Nakazawa T et al (2015) Hepatitis activity should be considered a confounder of liver stiffness measured with MR elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:1203–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yoshimitsu K, Mitsufuji T, Shinagawa Y et al (2016) MR elastography of the liver at 3.0 T in diagnosing liver fibrosis grades; preliminary clinical experience. Eur Radiol 26:656–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shi Y, Guo Q, Xia F et al (2014) MR elastography for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection: does histologic necroinflammation influence the measurement of hepatic stiffness? Radiology 273:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chhatwal J, Wang X, Ayer T et al (2016) Hepatitis C disease burden in the United States in the era of oral direct-acting antivirals. Hepatology 64:1442–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Alexopoulou A, Karayiannis P (2015) Interferon-based combination treatment for chronic hepatitis C in the era of direct acting antivirals. Ann Gastroenterol 28:55–65PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kanwal F, Kramer J, Asch SM, Chayanupatkul M, Cao Y, El-Serag HB (2017) Risk of hepatocellular cancer in HCV patients treated with direct acting antiviral agents. Gastroenterology 153:996–1005.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ogata F, Kobayashi M, Akuta N et al (2017) Outcome of all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimens on the rate of development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1-related chronic liver disease. Oncology 93:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of YamanashiYamanashiJapan
  2. 2.First Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of YamanashiYamanashiJapan

Personalised recommendations