Diagnostic performance of abbreviated gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance protocols with contrast-enhanced computed tomography for detection of colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND: Although contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using gadoxetic acid has been shown to have higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for the detection and characterization of hepatic metastases compared with other modalities, the long examination time would limit the broad indication. Several abbreviated enhanced MRI (Ab-MRI) protocols without dynamic phases have been proposed to achieve equivalent diagnostic performance for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. However, an optimal protocol has not been established, and no studies have assessed the diagnostic performance of Ab-MRI combined with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), which is the preoperative imaging of colorectal cancer staging in clinical settings, to determine the best therapeutic strategy. AIM: To compare the diagnostic performance of two kinds of Ab-MRI protocol with the standard MRI protocol and a combination of the Ab-MRI protocol and CE-CT for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: Study participants comprised 87 patients (51 males, 36 females; mean age, 67.2 ± 10.8 years) who had undergone gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and CE-CT during the initial work-up for colorectal cancer from 2010 to 2021. Each exam was independently reviewed by two readers in three reading sessions: (1) Only single-shot fast spin echo (FSE) T2-weighted or fat-suppressed-FSE-T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and hepatobiliary-phase images (Ab-MRI protocol 1 or 2); (2) all acquired MRI sequences (standard protocol); and (3) a combination of an Ab-MRI protocol (1 or 2) and CE-CT. Diagnostic performance was then statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 380 Lesions were analyzed, including 195 metastases (51.4%). Results from the two Ab-MRI protocols were similar. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values from Ab-MRI were non-inferior to those from standard MRI (P > 0.05), while those from the combination of Ab-MRI protocol and CE-CT tended to be higher than those from Ab-MRI alone, although the difference was not significant (P > 0.05), and were quite similar to those from standard MRI (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performances of two Ab-MRI protocols were non-inferior to that of the standard protocol. Combining Ab-MRI with CE-CT provided better diagnostic performance than Ab-MRI alone.