Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of adding hepatobiliary phase image in magnetic resonance imaging for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the performance of diagnostic algorithm of adding hepatobiliary phase (HBP) images in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) measuring up to 3 cm in patients with chronic liver disease.

Methods

We searched multiple databases from inception to April 10, 2020, to identify studies on using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for the diagnostic accuracy of HCC (≤ 3 cm) in patients with chronic liver disease. The diagnostic algorithm of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI with HBP for HCC was defined as a nodule showing hyperintensity during arterial phase and hypointensity during the portal venous, delayed, or hepatobiliary phases. For gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI without HBP, the diagnostic criteria were a nodule showing arterial enhancement and hypointensity on the portal venous or delayed phases. The data were extracted to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, likelihood ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) by using a bivariate random-effects model.

Results

Twenty-nine studies with 2696 HCC lesions were included. Overall Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI with HBP had a sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 92%, and the area under the sROC curve of 95%. The summary sensitivity of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI with HBP was significantly higher than that without HBP (84% vs 68%, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI with HBP showed higher sensitivity than that without HBP and had comparable specificity for diagnosis of HCC in patients with chronic liver disease.

Key Points

• Hypointensity on HBP is a major feature for diagnosis of HCC.

• Extending washout appearance to the transitional or hepatobiliary phase on Gd-EOB-DTPA provides favorable sensitivity and comparable specificity for diagnosis HCC.

• The summary sensitivity of gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI with HBP was significantly higher than that without HBP (84% vs 68%, p = 0.01) for diagnosis of HCC in patients with chronic liver disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AASLD:

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

AUC:

Area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve

CI:

Confidence interval

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratios

FN:

False-negative

FP:

False-positive

Gd-EOB-DTPA:

Gadoxetic acid

HBP:

Hepatobiliary phase

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NLR:

Negative likelihood ratio

PLR:

Positive likelihood ratio

sROC:

Summary receiver operating characteristic

TN:

True-negative

TP:

True-positive

References

  1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D et al (2015) The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 1:505–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma. The Lancet 379:1245–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM (2010) Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 127:2893–2917

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Soong RS, Yu MC, Chan KM et al (2011) Analysis of the recurrence risk factors for the patients with hepatocellular carcinoma meeting University of California San Francisco criteria after curative hepatectomy. World J Surg Oncol 9:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Imamura H, Matsuyama Y, Tanaka E et al (2003) Risk factors contributing to early and late phase intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. J Hepatol 38:200–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB et al (2018) Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 68:723–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zech CJ, Bartolozzi C, Bioulac-Sage P et al (2013) Consensus report of the Fifth International Forum for Liver MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:97–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuso C et al (2008) Diagnosis of hepatic nodules 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis: prospective validation of the noninvasive diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 47:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolondi L, Gaiani S, Celli N et al (2005) Characterization of small nodules in cirrhosis by assessment of vascularity: the problem of hypovascular hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 42:27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hwang J, Kim YK, Jeong WK, Choi D, Rhim H, Lee WJ (2015) Nonhypervascular hypointense nodules at gadoxetic acid– enhanced Mr imaging in chronic liver disease: diffusion-weighted imaging for characterization. Radiology

  12. Van Beers BE, Pastor CM, Hussain HK (2012) Primovist, Eovist: what to expect? J Hepatol 57:421–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahn SS, Kim MJ, Lim JS, Hong HS, Chung YE, Choi JY (2010) Added value of gadoxetic acid– enhanced hepatobiliary phase MR imaging in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 255:459–466

  14. Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB (2014) CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Part II. Extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features. Radiology 273:30–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N et al (2017) Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int 11:317–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A et al (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology 289:816–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Park MJ, Kim YK, Lee MW et al (2012) Small hepatocellular carcinomas: improved sensitivity by combining gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging patterns. Radiology 264:761–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim YK, Kim CS, Han YM, Park G (2010) Detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma: can gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging replace combining gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced and superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging? Invest Radiol 45:740–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Phongkitkarun S, Limsamutpetch K, Tannaphai P, Jatchavala J (2013) Added value of hepatobiliary phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients. World J Gastroenterol 19:8357–8365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Jeon JH, Han JK (2019) Retrospective validation of a new diagnostic criterion for hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: can hypointensity on the hepatobiliary phase be used as an alternative to washout with the aid of ancillary features? Eur Radiol 29:1724–1732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Renzulli M, Biselli M, Brocchi S et al (2018) New hallmark of hepatocellular carcinoma, early hepatocellular carcinoma and high-grade dysplastic nodules on Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI in patients with cirrhosis: a new diagnostic algorithm. Gut 67:1674–1682

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim DH, Choi SH, Kim SY, Kim MJ, Lee SS, Byun JH (2019) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma: value of washout in transitional and hepatobiliary phases. Radiology 291:651–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Grp P-D (2018) Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA 319:388–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins J, Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbookcochraneorg/chapter_9/9_5_2_identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneityhtm Updated March 2011 Accessed May 28, 2015

  26. Vogelgesang F, Schlattmann P, Dewey M (2018) The evaluation of bivariate mixed models in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies with SAS, Stata and R. Methods Inf Med 57:111–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Doebler P, Holling H, Bohning D (2012) A mixed model approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies with binary test outcome. Psychol Methods 17:418–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Choi SH, Byun JH, Lim YS et al (2016) Diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3 cm with hepatocyte-specific contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Hepatol 64:1099–1107

  30. Di Pietropaolo M, Briani C, Federici GF et al (2015) Comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images in the evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma and hypovascular hepatocellular nodules. Clin Imaging 39:468–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhao XT, Li WX, Chai WM, Chen KM (2014) Detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: Is the addition of diffusion-weighted MRI at 3.0T beneficial? J Dig Dis 15:137–145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Park MJ, Kim YK, Lee MH, Lee J (2013) Validation of diagnostic criteria using gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging for small hepatocellular carcinoma (< = 2.0 cm) in patients with hepatitis-induced liver cirrhosis. Acta Radiol 54:127–136

  33. Granito A, Galassi M, Piscaglia F et al (2013) Impact of gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance on the non-invasive diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 37:355–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Golfieri R, Renzulli M, Lucidi V, Corcioni B, Trevisani F, Bolondi L (2011) Contribution of the hepatobiliary phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI to Dynamic MRI in the detection of hypovascular small (< = 2 cm) HCC in cirrhosis. Eur Radiol 21:1233–1242

  35. Paisant A, Vilgrain V, Riou J et al (2020) Comparison of extracellular and hepatobiliary MR contrast agents for the diagnosis of small HCCs. J Hepatol 72:937–945

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhou Y, Jing X, Zhang X et al (2019) Combining the arterial phase of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of hepatic nodules ≤ 20 mm in patients with cirrhosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 45:693–701

  37. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Jeon JH, Han JK, Choi BI (2015) Noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: can hypointensity on the hepatobiliary phase be used as an alternative to washout? Eur Radiol 25:2859–2868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim YK, Kim YK, Park HJ, Park MJ, Lee WJ, Choi D (2014) Noncontrast MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging as the sole imaging modality for detecting liver malignancy in patients with high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Imaging 32:610–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim MY, Kim YK, Park HJ, Park MJ, Lee WJ, Choi D (2014) Diagnosis of focal liver lesions with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: is a shortened delay time possible by adding diffusion-weighted imaging? J Magnc Reson Imaging 39:31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hwang J, Kim YK, Kim JM, Lee WJ, Choi D, Hong SS (2014) Pretransplant diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma by gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Liver Transpl 20:1436–1446

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kim YK, Kim CS, Han YM, Lee YH (2011) Detection of liver malignancy with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: is addition of diffusion-weighted MRI beneficial? Clin Radiol 66:489–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chou CT, Chen YL, Su WW, Wu HK, Chen RC (2010) Characterization of cirrhotic nodules with gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: the efficacy of hepatocyte-phase imaging. J Magnc Reson Imaging 32:895–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Choi MH, Choi JI, Lee YJ, Park MY, Rha SE, Lall C (2017) MRI of small hepatocellular carcinoma: typical features are less frequent below a size cutoff of 1.5 cm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:544–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yu MH, Kim JH, Yoon JH et al (2014) Small (< = 1-cm) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance and imaging features at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 271:748–760

  45. Park VY, Choi JY, Chung YE et al (2014) Dynamic enhancement pattern of HCC smaller than 3 cm in diameter on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: comparison with multiphasic MDCT. Liver Int 34:1593–1602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ooka Y, Kanai F, Okabe S et al (2013) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI compared with CT during angiography in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Imaging 31:748–754

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Choi JW, Lee JM, Kim SJ et al (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma: imaging patterns on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images and their value as an imaging biomarker. Radiology 267:776–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rhee H, Kim MJ, Park YN, Choi JS, Kim KS (2012) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI findings of early hepatocellular carcinoma as defined by new histologic criteria. J Magnc Reson Imaging 35:393–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rhee H, Kim MJ, Park MS, Kim KA (2012) Differentiation of early hepatocellular carcinoma from benign hepatocellular nodules on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Br J Radiol 85:e837–e844

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim AY, Kim YK, Lee MW et al (2012) Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI with respect to the severity of liver cirrhosis. Acta Radiol 53:830–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kim YK, Kim CS, Han YM, Yu HC, Choi D (2011) Detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma: intraindividual comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI at 3.0 and 1.5 T. Invest Radiol 46:383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kawada N, Ohkawa K, Tanaka S et al (2010) Improved diagnosis of well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma with gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Hepatol Res 40:930–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Di Martino M, Marin D, Guerrisi A et al (2010) Intraindividual comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and 64-section multidetector CT in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Radiology 256:806–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kierans AS, Kang SK, Rosenkrantz AB (2016) The diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma measuring up to 2 cm: a meta-analysis. Radiology 278:82–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee JS et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 275:97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R et al (2009) Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol 10:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bashir MR, Gupta RT, Davenport MS et al (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma in a North American population: does hepatobiliary MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA improve sensitivity and confidence for diagnosis? J Magn Reson Imaging 37:398–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Palmucci S (2014) Focal liver lesions detection and characterization: the advantages of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI. World J Hepatol 6:477–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews in health care - systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening. BMJ 323:157–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J (1995) Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol 48:159–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jielin Pan, Wenjuan Li and Lingjing Gu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Zhuhai People’s Hospital, Zhuhai Hospital affiliated with Jinan University, Zhuhai, 519000, China

    Jielin Pan & Lingjing Gu

  2. Department of Radiology, the Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai, 519000, China

    Jielin Pan, Wenjuan Li, Chaoran Liu, Ke Zhang & Guobin Hong

Authors
  1. Jielin Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenjuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lingjing Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chaoran Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ke Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guobin Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guobin Hong.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Guobin Hong.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethics approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• multicenter study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 10694 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pan, J., Li, W., Gu, L. et al. Performance of adding hepatobiliary phase image in magnetic resonance imaging for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 32, 7883–7895 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08826-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08826-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation