4.7 Article

Noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: can hypointensity on the hepatobiliary phase be used as an alternative to washout?

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 2859-2868

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3686-3

关键词

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); Gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA); MRI; Liver; Diagnostic efficacy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine which dynamic phase(s) of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is most appropriate to assess washout in the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on hemodynamic pattern. In this retrospective cohort study, 288 consecutive patients with chronic liver disease presented with 387 arterially enhancing nodules (292 HCCs, 95 non-HCCs) (>= 1 cm) on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. All HCCs were confirmed by histopathology or by their typical enhancement pattern on dynamic liver CT. MR imaging diagnosis of HCC was made using criteria of arterial enhancement and hypointensity relative to the surrounding parenchyma (1) on the portal-venous phase (PVP), (2) on the PVP and/or transitional phase (TP), or (3) on the PVP and/or TP, and/or hepatobiliary phase (HBP). For the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC, criterion 1 provided significantly higher specificity (97.9 %; 95 % confidence interval, 92.6 - 99.7 %) than criteria 2 (86.3 %; 77.7 - 92.5 %), or 3 (48.4 %; 38.0 - 58.9 %). Conversely, higher sensitivity was obtained with criterion 3 (93.8 %; 90.4 - 96.3 %) than with criterion 2 (86.6 %; 82.2 - 90.3 %) or 1 (70.9 %; 65.3 - 76.0 %). To make a sufficiently specific diagnosis of HCC using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI based on typical enhancement features, washout should be determined on the PVP alone rather than combined with hypointensity on the TP or HBP. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI enhancement features can be used to diagnose HCC. Washout should be determined on the PVP alone for high specificity. Hypointensity on the TP or HBP increases sensitivity but lowers specificity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据