Submitted:
16 June 2024
Posted:
17 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Patients
Examination Technique
Imaging Analysis
- − Clearness of the image: definition of the edges of examined structures was scored on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents poor clearness, 2 is sub-optimal, 3 sufficient, 4 good, 5 optimal.
- − Presence and type of artifacts: this included respiratory ghosting, aliasing, zebra artifacts, and pixel granularity, scored from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates severe (not diagnostic images), 2 moderate (modest effects on diagnosis), 3 unsubstantial (no effects on diagnosis) and 4 absent).
- − Diagnostic reliability: the radiologist’s confidence in lesion detection was scored from 1 to 5 where 1 denotes poor (impossible diagnosis), 2 sub-optimal (suspected diagnosis), 3 sufficient (possible diagnosis), 4 good (probable diagnosis), and 5 optimal (definitive diagnosis).
- − slight agreement: ICC <0.2
- − fair agreement: ICC 0.2–0.4
- − moderate agreement: ICC 0.4–0.6
- − good agreement: ICC 0.6-0.8
- − excellent agreement ICC > 0.8
Results
Evaluation of Image Quality
Relative Enhancement Evaluation
- BH 10°: 1.58±0.52
- BH 30°: 2.23±0.82
- BH 40°: 2.47±0.84
- NAV 25°: 2.6±0.93
- NAV 40°: 2.62±0.86
Discussion
Conclusion
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, Singal AG, Pikarsky E, Roayaie S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021;7. [CrossRef]
- EASL-EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. n.d.
- Okuda, K. Early recognition of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1986;6:729–38. [CrossRef]
- Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: An update. Hepatology 2011;53:1020–2. [CrossRef]
- Pace C, Nardone V, Roma S, Chegai F, Toti L, Manzia TM, et al. Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Intraoperative Ultrasound in the Detection and Management of Liver Lesions in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Oncol 2019;2019. [CrossRef]
- Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, Iijima H, Kadoya M, Imai Y, et al. JSH consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2014 Update by the liver cancer study group of Japan. Liver Cancer 2014;3:458–68. [CrossRef]
- Tamada T, Ito K, Yamamoto A, Yasokawa K, Higaki A, Kanki A, et al. Hypointense hepatocellular nodules on hepatobiliary phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI: Can increasing the flip angle improve conspicuity of lesions? Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2013;37:1093–9. [CrossRef]
- Sheng R, Palm V, Mayer P, Mokry T, Berger AK, Weiss KH, et al. Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced -Phase Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Delineation of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia: Superiority of High-Flip-Angle Imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018;42:667–74. [CrossRef]
- Gupta RT, Iseman CM, Leyendecker JR, Shyknevsky I, Merkle EM, Taouli B. Diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia with MRI: Multicenter retrospective study comparing gadobenate dimeglumine to gadoxetate disodium. American Journal of Roentgenology 2012;199:35–43. [CrossRef]
- Haradome H, Grazioli L, Al Manea K, Tsunoo M, Motosugi U, Kwee TC, et al. Gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced hepatocyte phase MRI: Can increasing the flip angle improve focal liver lesion detection? Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2012;35:132–9. [CrossRef]
- Cho ES, Yu JS, Park AY, Woo ST, Kim JH, Chung JJ. Feasibility of 5-minute delayed transition phase imaging with 30° flip angle in gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3D gradient-echo MRI of liver, compared with 20-minute delayed hepatocyte phase MRI with standard 10° flip angle. American Journal of Roentgenology 2015;204:69–75. [CrossRef]
- Pravisani R, De Martino M, Mocchegiani F, Melandro F, Patrono D, Lauterio A, et al. Recipient hepatectomy technique may affect oncological outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2024. [CrossRef]
- Shalaby S, Taborelli M, Zanetto A, Ferrarese A, D’Arcangelo F, Gambato M, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma and the risk of de novo malignancies after liver transplantation – a multicenter cohort study. Transplant International 2021;34:743–53. [CrossRef]
- Taouli B, Ba-Ssalamah A, Chapiro J, Chhatwal J, Fowler K, Kang TW, et al. Consensus report from the 10th Global Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging: developments in HCC management. Eur Radiol 2023;33:9152–66. [CrossRef]
- Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB. CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Part II. Extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features. Radiology 2014;273:30–50. [CrossRef]
- Narita M, Hatano E, Arizono S, Miyagawa-Hayashino A, Isoda H, Kitamura K, et al. Expression of OATP1B3 determines uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol 2009;44:793–8. [CrossRef]
- Kim TK, Lee KH, Jang H-J, Haider MA, Jacks LM, Menezes RJ, et al. Analysis of Gadobenate Dimeglumine-enhanced MR Findings for Characterizing Small (1-2-cm) Hepatic Nodules in Patients at High Risk for Hepatocellular Carcinoma 1 From the Departments of Medical Imaging (T 2011;259. [CrossRef]
- Ahn SJ, Shin HJ, Chang JH, Lee SK. Differentiation between primary cerebral lymphoma and glioblastoma using the apparent diffusion coefficient: Comparison of three different ROI methods. PLoS One 2014;9. [CrossRef]
- Spinazzi A, Lorusso V, Pirovano G, Taroni P, Kirchin M, Davies A. MultiHance Clinical Pharmacology: Biodistribution and MR Enhancement of the Liver 1. n.d.
- Hamm B, Staks T, M#{252}hler A, Bolbow M, Taupitz M, Frenzel T, et al. Phase I Clinical Evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a Hepatobiliary MR Contrast Agent: Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and MR Imaging’. n.d.
- Park Y, Kim SH, Kim SH, Jeon YH, Lee J, Kim MJ, et al. Gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced mri versus gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA)-enhanced MRI for preoperatively detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: An initial experience. Korean J Radiol 2010;11:433–40. [CrossRef]
- Golfieri R, Grazioli L, Orlando E, Dormi A, Lucidi V, Corcioni B, et al. Which is the best MRI marker of malignancy for atypical cirrhotic nodules: Hypointensity in hepatobiliary phase alone or combined with other features? Classification after Gd-EOB-DTPA administration. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2012;36:648–57. [CrossRef]
- Tsuboyama T, Onishi H, Kim T, Akita H, Hori M, Tatsumi M, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: Hepatocyte-selective enhancement at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging - Correlation with expression of sinusoidal and canalicular transporters and bile accumulation. Radiology 2010;255:824–33. [CrossRef]
- Onishi H, Kim T, Imai Y, Hori M, Nagano H, Nakaya Y, et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas: Detection with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and multiphasic multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 2012;22:845–54. [CrossRef]
- Orlacchio A, Chegai F, Fabiano S, Merolla S, Funel V, Di Giuliano F, et al. Role of MRI with hepatospecific contrast agent in the identification and characterization of focal liver lesions: pathological correlation in explanted livers. Radiologia Medica 2016;121:588–96. [CrossRef]
- Kim YK, Lee WJ, Park MJ, Kim SH, Rhim H, Choi D. Hypovascular hypointense nodules on hepatobiliary phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images in patients with cirrhosis: Potential of DW imaging in predicting progression to hypervascular HCC. Radiology 2012;265:104–14. [CrossRef]
- Sano K, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U, Ichikawa S, Morisaka H, Enomoto N, et al. Outcome of hypovascular hepatic nodules with positive uptake of gadoxetic acid in patients with cirrhosis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:518–25. [CrossRef]
- Yoon JH, Lee JM, Lee ES, Baek J, Lee S, Iwadate Y, et al. Navigated three-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo sequence for gadoxetic acid liver magnetic resonance imaging in patients with limited breath-holding capacity. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:278–88. [CrossRef]
- Lee JM, Zech CJ, Bolondi L, Jonas E, Kim MJ, Matsui O, et al. Consensus report of the 4th international forum for gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid magnetic resonance imaging. Korean J Radiol 2011;12:403–15. [CrossRef]
- Nagle SK, Busse RF, Brau AC, Brittain JH, Frydrychowicz A, Iwadate Y, et al. High resolution navigated three-dimensional T1-weighted hepatobiliary MRI using gadoxetic acid optimized for 1.5 tesla. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2012;36:890–9. [CrossRef]
- Brismar TB, Dahlström N, Edsborg N, Persson A, Smedby Ö, Albiin N. Liver vessel enhancement by Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA: A comparison in healthy volunteers. Acta Radiol 2009;50:709–15. [CrossRef]
- Vasanawala SS, Iwadate Y, Church DG, Herfkens RJ, Brau AC. Navigated abdominal T1-W MRI permits free-breathing image acquisition with less motion artifact. Pediatr Radiol 2010;40:340–4. [CrossRef]
- Küuhn JP, Holmes JH, Brau ACS, Iwadate Y, Hernando D, Reeder SB. Navigator flip angle optimization for free-breathing T1-weighted hepatobiliary phase imaging with gadoxetic acid. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2014;40:1129–36. [CrossRef]


| PARAMETERS | T1-weighted SPGR volumetric fat-sat BH | T1-weighted SPGR volumetric fat-sat BH | T1-weighted SPGR volumetric fat-sat BH | T1-weighted SPGR NAV free-breathing | T1-weighted SPGR NAV free-breathing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TR/TE (ms) | 3.6/9.1 | 6.50/3.3 | 8.00/4.2 | 10/4.6 | 10/4.6 |
| MATRIX | 180x154 | 180x154 | 180x154 | 224 x121 | 224 x121 |
| Reconstruction Voxel (mm) | 0.71x0.71x2.60 | 0.71x0.71x2.60 | 0.71x0.71x2.60 | 0.98 x 0.98 x 2.50 | 0.98 x 0.98 x 2.50 |
| AVERAGE DURATION (sec) | 16 | 20 | 24 | 200 | 200 |
| FLIP ANGLE (°) | 10 | 30 | 40 | 25 | 40 |
| ICC - (p value) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CLEARNESS | ARTIFACTS | DIAGNOSTIC RELIABILITY | |
| BH 10° | 0.66 (0.001) | 0.62 (0.001) | 0.60 (0.001) |
| BH 30° | 0.66 (0.001) | 0.64 (0.001) | 0.65 (0.001) |
| BH 40° | 0.65 (0.001) | 0.40 (0.004) | 0.20 (0.020) |
| NAV 25° | 0.79 (0.001) | 0.39 (0.031) | 0.68 (0.001) |
| NAV 40° | 0.93 (0.001) | 0.71 (0.001) | 0.79 (0.001) |
| CLEARNESS OF THE IMAGE | ARTIFACTS | DIAGNOSTIC RELIABILITY | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH 10° | 4.23 ± 0.44 | 3.70 ± 0.37 | 4.29 ± 0.43 |
| BH 30° | 3.83 ± 0.38 | 3.26 ± 0.42 | 4.03 ± 0.47 |
| BH 40° | 3.09 ± 0.39 | 2.76 ± 0.29 | 3.20 ± 0.33 |
| NAV 25° | 4.23 ± 0.48 | 3.37 ± 0.36 | 4.24 ± 0.48 |
| NAV 40° | 4.62 ± 0.52 | 3.76 ± 0.35 | 4.77 ± 0.38 |
| CLEARNESS OF THE IMAGE | ARTIFACTS | DIAGNOSTIC RELIABILITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEQ | P-VALUE | SEQ | P-VALUE | SEQ | P-VALUE |
| BH 10° > BH 30° | < 0.0001 | BH 10° > BH 30° | < 0.0001 | BH 10° > BH 30° | < 0.0001 |
| BH 10° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | BH 10° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | BH 10° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 |
| NAV 25° > BH 10° | 0.92 | BH 10° > NAV 25° | < 0.0001 | BH 10° > NAV 25° | 0.19 |
| NAV 40° > BH 10° | < 0.0001 | NAV 40° > BH 10° | 0.09 | NAV 40° > BH 10° | < 0.0001 |
| BH 30° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | BH 30° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | BH 30° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 |
| NAV 25° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | NAV 25° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | NAV 25° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 |
| NAV 40° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | NAV 40° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 | NAV 40° > BH 40° | < 0.0001 |
| NAV 40° > NAV 25° | < 0.0001 | NAV 40° > NAV 25° | < 0.0001 | NAV 40° > NAV 25° | < 0.0001 |
| CNR LESION/LIVER | |
| SEQ | P-VALUE |
| BH 10° > BH 30° | 0.0002 |
| BH 10° > BH 40° | 0.005 |
| BH 10° > NAV 25° | 0.0001 |
| BH 10° > NAV 40° | 0.0001 |
| BH 30° > BH 40° | 0.31 |
| BH 40° > NAV 25° | 0.0002 |
| BH 40° > NAV 40° | 0.0001 |
| NAV 25° > NAV 40° | 0.0001 |
| CNR LIVER/SPLEEN | |
| SEQ | P-VALUE |
| BH 30° > BH 10° | 0.0001 |
| BH 40° > BH 10° | 0.0001 |
| NAV 25° > BH 10° | 0.0001 |
| NAV 40° > BH 10° | 0.0001 |
| BH 40° > BH 30° | 0.0001 |
| NAV 25° > BH 40° | 0.12 |
| NAV 40° > BH 40° | 0.21 |
| NAV 40° >NAV 25° | 0.86 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).