Volume 42, Issue 9 pp. 2080-2092
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging vs ultrasound for surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients

Hyo Jung Park

Hyo Jung Park

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Search for more papers by this author
So Yeon Kim

Corresponding Author

So Yeon Kim

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Liver Cancer Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Correspondence

So Yeon Kim, Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Amit G. Singal, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Young-Suk Lim, Department of Gastroenterology, Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Amit G. Singal

Corresponding Author

Amit G. Singal

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Correspondence

So Yeon Kim, Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Amit G. Singal, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Young-Suk Lim, Department of Gastroenterology, Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
So Jung Lee

So Jung Lee

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Liver Cancer Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Search for more papers by this author
Hyung Jin Won

Hyung Jin Won

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Liver Cancer Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Search for more papers by this author
Jae Ho Byun

Jae Ho Byun

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Liver Cancer Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Search for more papers by this author
Sang Hyun Choi

Sang Hyun Choi

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Liver Cancer Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Search for more papers by this author
Takeshi Yokoo

Takeshi Yokoo

Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Min-Ju Kim

Min-Ju Kim

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Search for more papers by this author
Young-Suk Lim

Corresponding Author

Young-Suk Lim

Liver Cancer Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Department of Gastroenterology, Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Correspondence

So Yeon Kim, Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Amit G. Singal, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Young-Suk Lim, Department of Gastroenterology, Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 24 November 2021
Citations: 14

S.Y.K., A.S., and Y.S.L. contributed equally to this work as co-corresponding authors.

Handling Editor: Luca Valenti

Funding information

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Health (U01 CA230694 to A.S.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Health.

Abstract

Background & Aims

We aimed to compare the performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced abbreviated MRI (AMRI)-based surveillance and ultrasound-only surveillance in high-risk patients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Prospectively recruited high-risk patients (>5% annual risk of HCC) who underwent one to three rounds of complete gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (CMRI) and ultrasound at 6-months intervals were retrospectively analysed. AMRI consisted of diffusion-weighted, T2-weighted, and hepatobiliary phase imaging. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CMRI followed by AMRI (CAA), AMRI-only (AAA), and ultrasound-only (US) were compared using generalized estimating equations. Image quality was assessed.

Results

In 382 patients, HCC was diagnosed in 43 (11.3%), including 42 with early-stage HCCs. The sensitivities of CAA (90.7%, 39/43) and AAA (86.0%, 37/43) were higher than US (27.9% [12/43]; P < 0.001), whereas the sensitivities of the two MRI approaches did not significantly differ (P = 0.56). The specificity of CAA (97.1%, 983/1012) was higher than AAA (95.6% [967/1012]; P = 0.01) and not significantly different from US (96.3% [975/1012]; P = 0.59). The CAA approach had the best accuracy of 96.9% (1022/1055), higher than the AAA approach (95.2% [1004/1055]; P = 0.01) and the US approach (93.6% [987/1055]; P = 0.01). Image quality was inadequate in 33.7% (356/1055) of US examinations but in only 10.0% (105/1055) of the AAA and 11.1% (117/1055) of the CAA approach.

Conclusions

In high-risk patients, AMRI-based surveillance approaches had higher sensitivities than ultrasound-only surveillance for early-stage HCC. A sequential MRI approach of CMRI followed by AMRIs showed superior accuracy than the AMRI-only or ultrasound-only approach.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Dr. Amit G Singal has served as a consultant for Bayer, Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, and TARGET Pharmasolutions. Dr. Sang Hyun Choi received grants from Bayer Healthcare outside the study. None of the other authors declare conflicts of interest that pertain to this work.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data are available upon reasonable request due to privacy.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.