Repeatability of diagnostic features and scoring systems for hepatocellular carcinoma by using MR imaging.

PURPOSE: To determine for expert and novice radiologists repeatability of major diagnostic features and scoring systems (ie, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System [LI-RADS], Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network [OPTN], and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases [AASLD]) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained and patient consent was waived for this HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. The LI-RADS discussed in this article refers to version 2013.1. Ten blinded readers reviewed 100 liver MR imaging studies that demonstrated observations preliminarily assigned LI-RADS scores of LR1-LR5. Diameter and major HCC features (arterial hyperenhancement, washout appearance, pseudocapsule) were recorded for each observation. LI-RADS, OPTN, and AASLD scores were assigned. Interreader agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficients and κ statistics. Scoring rates were compared by using McNemar test. RESULTS: Overall interreader agreement was substantial for arterial hyperenhancement (0.67 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.65, 0.69]), moderate for washout appearance (0.48 [95%CI: 0.46, 0.50]), moderate for pseudocapsule (0.52 [95% CI: 050, 0.54]), fair for LI-RADS (0.35 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.37]), fair for AASLD (0.39 [95% CI: 0.37, 0.42]), and moderate for OPTN (0.53 [95% CI: 0.51, 0.56]). Agreement for measured diameter was almost perfect (range, 0.95-0.97). There was substantial agreement for most scores consistent with HCC. Experts agreed significantly more than did novices and were significantly more likely than were novices to assign a diagnosis of HCC (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Two of three major features for HCC (washout appearance and pseudocapsule) have only moderate interreader agreement. Experts and novices who assigned scores consistent with HCC had substantial but not perfect agreement. Expert agreement is substantial for OPTN, but moderate for LI-RADS and AASLD. Novices were less consistent and less likely to diagnose HCC than were experts.

Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality.

PURPOSE: To determine whether acute transient dyspnea and/or arterial phase image degradation occurs more or less often after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium than with intravenous administration of gadobenate dimeglumine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient consent were obtained for this prospective observational study. One hundred ninety-eight gadolinium-based contrast media administrations (99 with gadoxetate disodium [10 mL, n = 97; 8 mL, n = 1; 16 mL, n = 1] and 99 with gadobenate dimeglumine [0.1 mmol per kilogram of body weight, maximum dose, 20 mL]) for hepatobiliary indications were assessed in 192 patients. Subjective patient complaints were assessed. Objective respiratory motion degradation on T1-weighted precontrast and dynamic postcontrast (arterial, venous, or late dynamic or extracellular) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging datasets were independently assessed in a randomized, blinded fashion by five readers using a five-point scale, with mean scores of 4 or greater indicating severe motion. Comparisons between agents were made by using χ(2) or Fisher exact test, where appropriate. RESULTS: Significantly more patient complaints of acute transient dyspnea occurred after gadoxetate disodium administration than gadobenate dimeglumine (14% [14 of 99] vs 5% [five of 99], P = .05). There were significantly more severely degraded arterial phase data sets for gadoxetate disodium than for gadobenate dimeglumine for both the general population (17% [17 of 99] vs 2% [two of 99], P = .0007) and the subpopulation with cirrhosis (19% [14 of 72] vs 3% [one of 37], P = .02). This effect did not extend to venous (1% [one of 99] vs 2% [two of 99], P > .99 [overall population]) or late dynamic or extracellular (2% [two of 99] vs 0% [zero of 99], P = .5 [overall population]) phases. No patient required treatment for self-limited dyspnea. CONCLUSION: Intravenous gadoxetate disodium can result in acute self-limiting dyspnea that can have a deleterious effect on arterial phase MR image quality and occurs significantly more often than with intravenous gadobenate dimeglumine.