Cargando…

Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic computed tomography (CT) and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for characterization of hepatic lesions by using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in a multicenter, off-site evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: An, Chansik, Lee, Chang Hee, Byun, Jae Ho, Lee, Min Hee, Jeong, Woo Kyoung, Choi, Sang Hyun, Kim, Do Young, Lim, Young-Suk, Kim, Young Seok, Kim, Ji Hoon, Choi, Moon Seok, Kim, Myeong-Jin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31854149
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0363
_version_ 1783481484102860800
author An, Chansik
Lee, Chang Hee
Byun, Jae Ho
Lee, Min Hee
Jeong, Woo Kyoung
Choi, Sang Hyun
Kim, Do Young
Lim, Young-Suk
Kim, Young Seok
Kim, Ji Hoon
Choi, Moon Seok
Kim, Myeong-Jin
author_facet An, Chansik
Lee, Chang Hee
Byun, Jae Ho
Lee, Min Hee
Jeong, Woo Kyoung
Choi, Sang Hyun
Kim, Do Young
Lim, Young-Suk
Kim, Young Seok
Kim, Ji Hoon
Choi, Moon Seok
Kim, Myeong-Jin
author_sort An, Chansik
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic computed tomography (CT) and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for characterization of hepatic lesions by using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in a multicenter, off-site evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, we evaluated 231 hepatic lesions (114 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs], 58 non-HCC malignancies, and 59 benign lesions) confirmed histologically in 217 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent both gadoxetate-enhanced MRI and dynamic CT at one of five tertiary hospitals. Four radiologists at different institutes independently reviewed all MR images first and the CT images 4 weeks later. They evaluated the major and ancillary imaging features and categorized each hepatic lesion according to the LI-RADS v2014. Diagnostic performance was calculated and compared using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: MRI showed higher sensitivity and accuracy than CT for diagnosing hepatic malignancies; the pooled sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies for categorizing LR-5/5V/M were 59.0% vs. 72.4% (CT vs. MRI; p < 0.001), 83.5% vs. 83.9% (p = 0.906), and 65.3% vs. 75.3% (p < 0.001), respectively. CT and MRI showed comparable capabilities for differentiating between HCC and other malignancies, with pooled accuracies of 79.9% and 82.4% for categorizing LR-M, respectively (p = 0.139). CONCLUSION: Gadoxetate-enhanced MRI showed superior accuracy for categorizing LR-5/5V/M in hepatic malignancies in comparison with dynamic CT. Both modalities had comparable accuracies for distinguishing other malignancies from HCC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6923212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Korean Society of Radiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69232122019-12-30 Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study An, Chansik Lee, Chang Hee Byun, Jae Ho Lee, Min Hee Jeong, Woo Kyoung Choi, Sang Hyun Kim, Do Young Lim, Young-Suk Kim, Young Seok Kim, Ji Hoon Choi, Moon Seok Kim, Myeong-Jin Korean J Radiol Gastrointestinal Imaging OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic computed tomography (CT) and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for characterization of hepatic lesions by using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in a multicenter, off-site evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, we evaluated 231 hepatic lesions (114 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs], 58 non-HCC malignancies, and 59 benign lesions) confirmed histologically in 217 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent both gadoxetate-enhanced MRI and dynamic CT at one of five tertiary hospitals. Four radiologists at different institutes independently reviewed all MR images first and the CT images 4 weeks later. They evaluated the major and ancillary imaging features and categorized each hepatic lesion according to the LI-RADS v2014. Diagnostic performance was calculated and compared using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: MRI showed higher sensitivity and accuracy than CT for diagnosing hepatic malignancies; the pooled sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies for categorizing LR-5/5V/M were 59.0% vs. 72.4% (CT vs. MRI; p < 0.001), 83.5% vs. 83.9% (p = 0.906), and 65.3% vs. 75.3% (p < 0.001), respectively. CT and MRI showed comparable capabilities for differentiating between HCC and other malignancies, with pooled accuracies of 79.9% and 82.4% for categorizing LR-M, respectively (p = 0.139). CONCLUSION: Gadoxetate-enhanced MRI showed superior accuracy for categorizing LR-5/5V/M in hepatic malignancies in comparison with dynamic CT. Both modalities had comparable accuracies for distinguishing other malignancies from HCC. The Korean Society of Radiology 2019-12 2019-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6923212/ /pubmed/31854149 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0363 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Korean Society of Radiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Gastrointestinal Imaging
An, Chansik
Lee, Chang Hee
Byun, Jae Ho
Lee, Min Hee
Jeong, Woo Kyoung
Choi, Sang Hyun
Kim, Do Young
Lim, Young-Suk
Kim, Young Seok
Kim, Ji Hoon
Choi, Moon Seok
Kim, Myeong-Jin
Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study
title Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study
title_full Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study
title_fullStr Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study
title_full_unstemmed Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study
title_short Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study
title_sort intraindividual comparison between gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and dynamic computed tomography for characterizing focal hepatic lesions: a multicenter, multireader study
topic Gastrointestinal Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31854149
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0363
work_keys_str_mv AT anchansik intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT leechanghee intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT byunjaeho intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT leeminhee intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT jeongwookyoung intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT choisanghyun intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT kimdoyoung intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT limyoungsuk intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT kimyoungseok intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT kimjihoon intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT choimoonseok intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy
AT kimmyeongjin intraindividualcomparisonbetweengadoxetateenhancedmagneticresonanceimaginganddynamiccomputedtomographyforcharacterizingfocalhepaticlesionsamulticentermultireaderstudy