Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas: detection with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and multiphasic multidetector CT

  • Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To retrospectively compare the accuracy of detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by multiphasic multidetector CT and by gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging.

Methods

After ethical approval, we analysed a total of 73 hypervascular HCC lesions from 31 patients suspected of having HCC, who underwent both gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and multiphasic multidetector CT. Five blinded observers independently reviewed CT images, as well as dynamic MR images alone and combined with hepatobiliary phase MR images. Diagnostic accuracy (Az values), sensitivities and positive predictive values were compared by using the Scheffe post hoc test.

Results

The mean Az value for dynamic and hepatobiliary phase MR combined (0.81) or dynamic MR images alone (0.78) was significantly higher than that for CT images (0.67, P < 0.001, 0.005, respectively). The mean sensitivity of the combined MR images (0.67) was significantly higher than that of dynamic MR alone (0.52, P < 0.05) or CT images (0.44, P < 0.05). The mean positive predictive values were 0.96, 0.95 and 0.94, for CT, dynamic MR alone and combined MR images, respectively.

Conclusions

Compared with multiphasic multidetector CT, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging combining dynamic and hepatobiliary phase images results in significantly improved sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy for detection of hypervascular HCC.

Key Points

• Gadoxetate disodium is a new liver-specific MR imaging contrast agent. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI helps the assessment of patients with liver disease.

• It showed high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bruix J, Sherman M (2005) AASLD practice guideline: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 42:1208–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) AASLD practice guideline: management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM et al (2001) Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma: conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. J Hepatol 35:421–430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Torzilli G, Minagawa M, Takayama T et al (1999) Accurate preoperative evaluation of liver mass lesions without fine-needle biopsy. Hepatology 30:889–893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Levy I, Greig PD, Gallinger S et al (2001) Resection of hepatocellular carcinoma without preoperative tumour biopsy. Ann Surg 234:206–209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schuhrnann-Giarnpieri C, Schmitt-Willich H, Press WR et al (1992) Preclinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the hepatobiliary system. Radiology 183:59–64

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clement O, Mühler A, Vexler V et al (1992) Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-DTPA: a new liver-specific magnetic resonance contrast agent-kinetic and enhancement patterns in normal and cholestatic rats. Invest Radiol 27:612–619

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mühler A, Clément O, Saeed M et al (1993) Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-DTPA: a new liver-directed magnetic resonance contrast agent-absence of acute epatotoxic, cardiovascular, or immunologic effects. Invest Radiol 28:26–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weinmann HJ, Schuhmann-Gampieri G, Schmitt-Willich H et al (1991) A new lipophilic gadolinium chelate as a tissue-specific contrast medium for MRI. Magn Reson Med 22:222–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. MuehlerA HI, Weinmann HJ (1994) Elimination of Gd-EOB-DTPA in severely impaired liver and kidney excretory function. Invest Radiol 29:213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kitao A, Matsui O, Yoneda N et al (2011) The uptake transporter OATP8 expression decreases during multistep hepatocarcinogenesis: correlation with gadoxetic acid enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 21:2056–2066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reimer P, Schneider G, Schima W (2004) Hepatobiliary contrast agents for contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver: properties, clinical development and applications. Eur Radiol 14:559–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Shamsi K et al (1996) Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: dose, safety aspects and pulse sequence. Radiology 199:177–183

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Golfieri R, Renzulli M, Lucidi V, Corcioni B, Trevisani F, Bolondi L (2011) Contribution of the hepatobiliary phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI to Dynamic MRI in the detection of hypovascular small (≤2 cm) HCC in cirrhosis. Eur Radiol 21:1233–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Löwenthal D, Zeile M, Lim WY et al (2011) Detection and characterisation of focal liver lesions in colorectal carcinoma patients: comparison of diffusion-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 21:832–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shimada K, Isoda H, Hirokawa Y, Arizono S, Shibata T, Togashi K (2010) Comparison of gadolinium-EOB-DTPA-enhanced and diffusion-weighted liver MRI for detection of small hepatic metastases. Eur Radiol 20:2690–2698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ricke J, Thormann M, Ludewig M et al (2010) MR-guided liver tumour ablation employing open high-field 1.0T MRI for image-guided brachytherapy. Eur Radiol 20:1985–1993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Choi JS, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Park MS, Lim JS, Kim KW (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of liver on 3.0-Tesla system: effect of intravenous administration of gadoxetic acid disodium. Eur Radiol 20:1052–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tanimoto A, Lee JM, Murakami T, Huppertz A, Kudo M, Grazioli L (2009) Consensus report of the 2nd International Forum for Liver MRI. Eur Radiol 19:S975–S989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zech CJ, Grazioli L, Jonas E et al (2009) Health-economic evaluation of three imaging strategies in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI vs. extracellular contrast media-enhanced MRI and 3-phase MDCT in Germany, Italy and Sweden. Eur Radiol 19:S753–S763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE et al (1997) Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 7:275–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ichikawa T, Saito K, Yoshioka N et al (2010) Detection and characterization of focal liver lesions: a Japanese phase III, multicenter comparison between gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography predominantly in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease. Invest Radiol 45:133–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim SH, Kim SH, Lee J et al (2009) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI versus triple-phase MDCT for the preoperative detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1675–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim YK, Kim CS, Han YM et al (2009) Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging versus multi-detector row computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:844–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J et al (2008) Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: comparison with intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 18:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Halavaara J, Breuer J, Ayuso C et al (2006) Liver tumour characterization: comparison between liver-specific gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI and biphasic CT-a multicenter trial. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:345–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A et al (2004) Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology 230:266–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A et al (2005) Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT-initial observations. Radiology 234:468–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vogl TJ, Kümmel S, Hammerstingl R et al (1996) Liver tumours: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 200:59–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bluemke DA, Sahani D, Amendola M et al (2005) Efficacy and safety of MR imaging with liver-specific contrast agent: U.S. multicenter phase III study. Radiology 237:89–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Akai H, Kiryu S, Takao H et al (2009) Efficacy of double-arterial phase gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging compared with double-arterial phase multi-detector row helical computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:887–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Murakami T, Takamura M, Kim T et al (2005) Double phase CT during hepatic arteriography for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 54:246–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2005) Hepatocellular carcinoma: role of unenhanced and delayed phase multi-detector row helical CT in patients with cirrhosis. Radiology 234:460–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hayat MA (2009) Methods of cancer diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis. Volume 5, Liver Cancer. Springer, New York, pp 221–235

    Google Scholar 

  35. Murakami T, Kim T, Takamura M et al (2001) Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with double arterial phase multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 218:763–767

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tsuboyama T, Onishi H, Kim T et al (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma: hepatocyte-selective enhancement at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging–correlation with expression of sinusoidal and canalicular transporters and bile accumulation. Radiology 255:824–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kogita S, Imai Y, Okada M et al (2010) Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance images of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with histological grading and portal blood flow. Eur Radiol 20:2405–2413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fleiss JL (1981) The measurement of interrater agreement. In Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, pp 212–236

  39. Chakraborty DP, Winter LH (1990) Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology 174:873–881

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Doo KW, Lee CH, Choi JW et al (2009) “Pseudo washout” sign in high-flow hepatic hemangioma on gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI mimicking hypervascular tumour. Am J Roentgenol 193:W490–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sun HY, Lee JM, Shin CI et al (2010) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating small hepatocellular carcinomas (2 cm in diameter) from arterial enhancing pseudolesions: special emphasis on hepatobiliary phase imaging. Invest Radiol 45:96–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Marin D, Di Martino M, Guerrisi A et al (2009) Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: qualitative comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging and multiphasic 64-section CT. Radiology 251:85–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (21791191) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and by Health and Labor Sciences Research Grants (KAKENHI), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan

    Hiromitsu Onishi, Tonsok Kim, Masatoshi Hori, Yasuhiro Nakaya, Takahiro Tsuboyama, Atsushi Nakamoto, Mitsuaki Tatsumi & Noriyuki Tomiyama

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, Ikeda Municipal Hospital, 3-1-18, Johnan, Ikeda, Osaka, 563-8510, Japan

    Yasuharu Imai

  3. Department of Surgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan

    Hiroaki Nagano

  4. Department of Radiology, Kinki University School of Medicine, 377-2, Ohno-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan

    Seishi Kumano, Masahiro Okada & Takamichi Murakami

  5. Department of Radiology, Ikeda Municipal Hospital, 3-1-18, Johnan, Ikeda, Osaka, 563-8510, Japan

    Manabu Takamura

  6. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3, Asahimachi, Abeno, Osaka, Osaka, 545-8585, Japan

    Kenichi Wakasa

Authors
  1. Hiromitsu Onishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tonsok Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yasuharu Imai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masatoshi Hori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hiroaki Nagano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yasuhiro Nakaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Takahiro Tsuboyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Atsushi Nakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mitsuaki Tatsumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Seishi Kumano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Masahiro Okada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Manabu Takamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Kenichi Wakasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Noriyuki Tomiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Takamichi Murakami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiromitsu Onishi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Onishi, H., Kim, T., Imai, Y. et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas: detection with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and multiphasic multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 22, 845–854 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2316-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2316-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation