Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

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

References

  1. Wong VW, Janssen HL (2015) Can we use HCC risk scores to individualize surveillance in chronic hepatitis B infection? J Hepatol 63:722–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sugino Y, Yamakado K, Yamanaka T et al (2017) Role of curative treatment in patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Jpn J Radiol 35:254–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 45:744–753

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 14:652–657

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 43:2522–2529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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) 42:2632–2638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 42:839–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 8:501–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 46:375–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 278:114–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:e3434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 23:156–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Rouviere O, Yin M, Dresner MA et al (2006) MR elastography of the liver: preliminary results. Radiology 240:440–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ et al (2007) Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:1207–1213.e2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Manduca A, Oliphant TE, Dresner MA et al (2001) Magnetic resonance elastography: non-invasive mapping of tissue elasticity. Med Image Anal 5:237–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 193:122–127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 34:1340–1348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 31:146–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–S108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bartolomeo N, Trerotoli P, Serio G (2011) Progression of liver cirrhosis to HCC: an application of hidden Markov model. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:38

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 50:347–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 41:117–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Asrani SK, Talwalkar JA, Kamath PS et al (2014) Role of magnetic resonance elastography in compensated and decompensated liver disease. J Hepatol 60:934–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 44:715–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 37:41–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 26:398–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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) 42:1685–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 27:1713–1721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:298–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 31:395–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 44:217–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 132:517–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 57:556–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 9:621–626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:e32233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 52:1407–1412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 131:174–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:e000192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 41:1203–1208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 26:656–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 273:88–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 64:1442–1450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Alexopoulou A, Karayiannis P (2015) Interferon-based combination treatment for chronic hepatitis C in the era of direct acting antivirals. Ann Gastroenterol 28:55–65

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.e1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 93:92–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo-shi, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan

    Shintaro Ichikawa, Utaroh Motosugi & Hiroshi Onishi

  2. First Department of Internal Medicine, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo-shi, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan

    Nobuyuki Enomoto

Authors
  1. Shintaro Ichikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Utaroh Motosugi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nobuyuki Enomoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroshi Onishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Utaroh Motosugi.

Ethics declarations

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 5467 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ichikawa, S., Motosugi, U., Enomoto, N. et al. Magnetic resonance elastography can predict development of hepatocellular carcinoma with longitudinally acquired two-point data. Eur Radiol 29, 1013–1021 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5640-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5640-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation