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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |