Diagnostic performance of MRI using extracellular contrast agents versus gadoxetic acid for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background & Aims Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the first‐line tool for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver diseases. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare the performance of MRI using extracellular contrast agents (ECA‐MRI) with tha...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Liver international 2021-05, Vol.41 (5), p.1117-1128
Main Authors: Feng, Zhichao, Zhao, Huafei, Guan, Shiwei, Wang, Wei, Rong, Pengfei
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bivariate analysis
Contrast agents
Contrast media
Diagnosis
gadoxetic acid disodium
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Lesions
Liver cancer
Liver diseases
Magnetic resonance imaging
Meta-analysis
Phase transitions
Sensitivity
Subgroups
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background & Aims Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the first‐line tool for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver diseases. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare the performance of MRI using extracellular contrast agents (ECA‐MRI) with that using gadoxetic acid (EOB‐MRI) for diagnosing HCC. Methods We searched multiple databases for studies comparing the diagnostic performance of ECA‐MRI with that of EOB‐MRI in patients with suspected HCC until 31 May 2020. The bivariate random‐effects model was used to pool the performance and further subgroup analysis was performed. Results Eight studies were included evaluating a total of 1002 patients. ECA‐MRI revealed significantly higher per‐lesion sensitivity in the diagnosis of HCC than EOB‐MRI did (0.76 vs 0.63, P = .002). For modified EOB‐MRI (mEOB‐MRI) using extended washout to the transitional phase (TP) or hepatobiliary phase (HBP), the sensitivity increased compared with that of EOB‐MRI using restrictive washout in the portal venous phase (PVP) (0.74 vs 0.63, P = .07). No significant difference among the specificities of ECA‐MRI, EOB‐MRI, and mEOB‐MRI (0.96, 0.98, and 0.93, respectively) was found. The sensitivity for lesions 
ISSN:1478-3223
1478-3231
DOI:10.1111/liv.14850