Comparison of extracellular and hepatobiliary MR contrast agents for the diagnosis of small HCCs.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to use a head-to-head nodule comparison to compare the performance of extracellular contrast agent MRI (ECA-MRI) with that of hepatobiliary contrast agent MRI (HBA-MRI) for the non-invasive diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). METHODS: Between August 2014 and October 2017, 171 patients with cirrhosis, each with 1 to 3 nodules measuring 1-3 cm, were enrolled across 8 centers. All patients underwent both an ECA-MRI and an HBA-MRI within a month. A non-invasive diagnosis of HCC was made when a nodule exhibited arterial phase hyper-enhancement (APHE) with washout at the portal venous phase (PVP) and/or delayed phase (DP) for ECA-MRI, or the PVP and/or HB phase (HBP) for HBA-MRI. The gold standard was defined by using a previously published composite algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 225 nodules, of which 153 were HCCs and 72 were not, were included. The sensitivites of both MRI techniques were similar. Specificity was 83.3% (95% CI 72.7-91.1) for ECA-MRI and 68.1% (95% CI 56.0-78.6) for HBA-MRI. In terms of HCC diagnosis on ECA-MRI, 138 nodules had APHE, 84 had washout at PVP, and 104 at DP; on HBA-MRI, 128 nodules had APHE, 71 had washout at PVP, and 99 at HBP. For nodules 2-3 cm in size, sensitivity and specificity were similar between the 2 approaches. For nodules 1-2 cm in size, specificity dropped to 66.1% (95% CI 52.2-78.2) for HBA-MRI vs. 85.7% (95% CI 73.8-93.6) for ECA-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: HBA-MRI specificity is lower than that of ECA-MRI for diagnosing small HCCs in patients with cirrhosis. These results raise the question of the proper use of HBA-MRI in algorithms for the non-invasive diagnosis of small HCCs. LAY SUMMARY: There are 2 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based approaches available for the non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), using either extracellular or hepatobiliary contrast agents. The current results showed that the sensitivity of MRI with hepatobiliary contrast agents was similar to that with extracellular contrast agents, but the specificity was lower. Thus, hepatobiliary contrast agent-based MRI, although detailed in international guidelines, should be used with caution for the non-invasive diagnosis of HCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00848952.

Left gastric vein embolization during TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding has no effect on bleeding recurrence: Results of a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether concomitant left gastric vein embolization (LGVE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for acute variceal hemorrhage could reduce the risk of bleeding recurrence. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A national multicenter observational study was conducted in 14 centers between January 2019 and December 2020. All cirrhotic patients who underwent TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding were included. During TIPS procedure, size of left gastric vein (LGV), performance of LGVE, material used for LGVE and portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG) before and after TIPS placement were collected. A propensity score for the occurrence of LGVE was calculated to assess effect of LGVE on rebleeding recurrence at six weeks and one year. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were included (mean age 57.3 ± 10.8 [standard deviation] years; 283/356 [79%] men). Median follow-up was 11.2 months [interquartile range: 1.2, 13.3]. The main indication for TIPS was pre-emptive TIPS (162/356; 46%), rebleeding despite secondary prophylaxis (105/356; 29%), and salvage TIPS (89/356; 25%). Overall, 128/356 (36%) patients underwent LGVE during TIPS procedure. At six weeks and one year, rebleeding-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who underwent LGVE and those who did not (6/128 [5%] vs. 15/228 [7%] at six weeks, and 11/128 [5%] vs. 22/228 [7%] at one year, P = 0.622 and P = 0.889 respectively). A total of 55 pairs of patients were retained after propensity score matching. In patients without LGVE, the rebleeding rate was not different from those with LGVE (3/55 [5%] vs. 4/55 [7%], P > 0.99, and 5/55 [9%] vs. 6/55[11%], P > 0.99, at six weeks and one year respectively). Multivariable analysis identified PPG after TIPS placement as the only predictor of bleeding recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.18; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter national real-life study, we did not observe any benefit of concomitant LGVE during TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding on bleeding recurrence rate.