Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI sequences for measuring hepatic observation size and its implication of LI-RADS classification

  • Hepatobiliary
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to determine the optimal image sequence for measurement of hepatic observations on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI in comparison with pathologic measurement, and to evaluate its clinical impact on the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 classification.

Methods

Two hundred and fifty-three patients (279 hepatic observations) who underwent gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI and subsequent hepatectomy were retrospectively included. Two radiologists independently evaluated the visualization score (five-point scale) and size of each observation on six MRI sequences (T1-weighted, T2-weighted, arterial-phase, portal venous-phase, transitional-phase [TP], and hepatobiliary-phase [HBP] images) and assigned a LI-RADS category. Correlations between MRI and pathologic measurements were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients. A repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc comparison tests was used to compare the visualization scores and absolute differences between MRI sequences and pathologic measurements. The LI-RADS classification according the size measurement of each MRI sequence was compared using Cochran’s Q test with a post hoc McNemar’s test.

Results

Of the MRI sequences, HBP had the highest visualization score (4.1 ± 0.6) and correlation coefficient (r = 0.965). The absolute difference between MRI and pathologic measurement was lowest on TP (2.3 mm ± 2.2), followed by HBP (2.4 mm ± 2.1). In the LI-RADS classifications, HBP did not have any non-visible observations. Regarding LR-3, LR-4, and LR-5, there was no significantly different LI-RADS classification among the six MRI sequences (p ≥ 0.122).

Conclusion

Hepatobiliary-phase images are clinically useful for measuring hepatic observations on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI, especially regarding visibility and correlation with pathologic findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

HCC :

Hepatocellular carcinoma

LI-RADS :

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System

T1WI :

T1-weighted image

T2WI :

T2-weighted image

AP :

Arterial phase

PVP :

Portal venous phase

TP :

Transitional phase

HBP :

Hepatobiliary phase

References

  1. El-Serag HB (2011) Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 365:1118–1127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Fitzmaurice C, Abate D et al (2019) Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol 5:1749–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address eee, European Association for the Study of the L (2018) EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 69:182–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS et al (2018) AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 67:358–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. American College of Radiology. LI-RADS version 1.0. Available via https://www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS/LI-RADS1. Accessed August 31, 2021

  6. American College of Radiology. LI-RADS version 2018. Available via https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS/CT-MRI-LI-RADS-v2018. Accessed August 31, 2021

  7. Roncalli M (2004) Hepatocellular nodules in cirrhosis: focus on diagnostic criteria on liver biopsy. A Western experience. Liver Transpl 10:S9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuso C et al (2008) Diagnosis of hepatic nodules 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis: Prospective validation of the noninvasive diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 47:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huo TI, Wu JC, Lui WY et al (2004) Reliability of contemporary radiology to measure tumour size of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients undergoing resection: limitations and clinical implications. Scand J Gastroenterol 39:46–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Seuss CR, Kim MJ, Triolo MJ, Hajdu CH, Rosenkrantz AB (2014) Comparison of MRI pulse sequences for prediction of size of hepatocellular carcinoma at explant evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:300–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, Hussain HK, Pomfret EA, Bruix J (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 266:376–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R et al (1996) Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 334:693–699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mukaka MM (2012) Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24:69–71

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen J (1986) Citation-Classic - a Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences:18–18

  15. Huh J, Kim SY, Yeh BM et al (2015) Troubleshooting Arterial-Phase MR Images of Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Liver. Korean J Radiol 16:1207–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sano K, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U et al (2011) Imaging study of early hepatocellular carcinoma: usefulness of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 261:834–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bashir MR, Gupta RT, Davenport MS et al (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma in a North American population: does hepatobiliary MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA improve sensitivity and confidence for diagnosis? J Magn Reson Imaging 37:398–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Palmucci S (2014) Focal liver lesions detection and characterization: The advantages of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI. World J Hepatol 6:477–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Inoue T, Kudo M, Komuta M et al (2012) Assessment of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for HCC and dysplastic nodules and comparison of detection sensitivity versus MDCT. J Gastroenterol 47:1036–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee JS et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 275:97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Choi SH, Byun JH, Kwon HJ et al (2015) The usefulness of gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma: toward improved staging. Ann Surg Oncol 22:819–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tateyama A, Fukukura Y, Takumi K et al (2012) Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging features of hepatic hemangioma compared with enhanced computed tomography. World J Gastroenterol 18:6269–6276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim BS, Kim JH, Choi GM et al (2008) Comparison of three free-breathing T2-weighted MRI sequences in the evaluation of focal liver lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:W19–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li T, Mirowitz SA (2003) Fast T2-weighted MR imaging: impact of variation in pulse sequence parameters on image quality and artifacts. Magn Reson Imaging 21:745–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ji Young Choi and Jiyeon Ha have equally contributed to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea

    Ji Young Choi, Jiyeon Ha, Sang Hyun Choi, So Yeon Kim & Kyoung Won Kim

  2. Department of Radiology, Kangdong Seong-Sim Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Jiyeon Ha

  3. Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Hyo Jeong Kang

Authors
  1. Ji Young Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiyeon Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sang Hyun Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hyo Jeong Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. So Yeon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kyoung Won Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SHC, JYC, and JH made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. JY Choi and J Ha drafted the work and SH Choi, HJ Kang, SY Kim, and KW Kim revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang Hyun Choi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Sang Hyun Choi receives research funding from Bayer Healthcare outside the submitted work. The other coauthors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

The Institutional Review Board waived the need for informed consent.

Informed consent

The IRB waived informed consent for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, J.Y., Ha, J., Choi, S.H. et al. Comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI sequences for measuring hepatic observation size and its implication of LI-RADS classification. Abdom Radiol 47, 1024–1031 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03403-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03403-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation