Sirlin, Claude B.

Use of gadoxetate disodium, a hepatobiliary gadolinium‐based agent, in patients with chronic parenchymal liver disease offers the advantage of improved sensitivity for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Imaging features of liver observations on gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI may also serve as biomarkers of recurrence‐free and overall survival following definitive treatment of HCC. A number of technical and interpretative pitfalls specific to gadoxetate exist, however, and needs to be recognized when protocoling and interpreting MRI exams with this agent. This article reviews the advantages and pitfalls of gadoxetate use in patients at risk for HCC, and the potential impact on Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI‐RADS) imaging feature assessment and categorization.Level of Evidence: 5Technical Efficacy Stage: 2J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1236–1252.

Level of Evidence : 5 Technical Efficacy Stage : 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1169–1171.

Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow‐up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT‐indeterminate or MRI‐indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI or gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate‐enhanced or extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI over CT.Conclusion:CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross‐sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology2018;67:401‐421).

Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a promising technique for noninvasive assessment of fibrosis, a major determinant of outcome in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, data in children are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of MRE for the detection of fibrosis and advanced fibrosis in children with NAFLD and to assess agreement between manual and novel automated reading methods. We performed a prospective, multicenter study of two‐dimensional (2D) MRE in children with NAFLD. MR elastograms were analyzed manually at two reading centers, and using a new automated technique. Analysis using each approach was done independently. Correlations were determined between MRE analysis methods and fibrosis stage. Thresholds for classifying the presence of fibrosis and of advanced fibrosis were computed and cross‐validated. In 90 children with a mean age of 13.1 ± 2.4 years, median hepatic stiffness was 2.35 kPa. Stiffness values derived by each reading center were strongly correlated with each other (r = 0.83). All three analyses were significantly correlated with fibrosis stage (center 1, ρ = 0.53; center 2, ρ = 0.55; and automated analysis, ρ = 0.52; P < 0.001). Overall cross‐validated accuracy for detecting any fibrosis was 72.2% for all methods (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.8%‐81.1%). Overall cross‐validated accuracy for assessing advanced fibrosis was 88.9% (95% CI, 80.5%‐94.5%) for center 1, 90.0% (95% CI, 81.9%‐95.3%) for center 2, and 86.7% (95% CI, 77.9%‐92.9%) for automated analysis. Conclusion : 2D MRE can estimate hepatic stiffness in children with NAFLD. Further refinement and validation of automated analysis techniques will be an important step in standardizing MRE. How to best integrate MRE into clinical protocols for the assessment of NAFLD in children will require prospective evaluation. (H epatology 2017;66:1474–1485)

Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal cholesterol absorption and lowers low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that it reduces liver fat as estimated by ultrasound in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Therefore, we aimed to examine the efficacy of ezetimibe versus placebo in reducing liver fat by the magnetic resonance imaging‐derived proton density‐fat fraction (MRI‐PDFF) and liver histology in patients with biopsy‐proven NASH. In this randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, 50 patients with biopsy‐proven NASH were randomized to either ezetimibe 10 mg orally daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in liver fat as measured by MRI‐PDFF in colocalized regions of interest within each of the nine liver segments. Novel assessment by two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional magnetic resonance elastography was also performed. Ezetimibe was not significantly better than placebo at reducing liver fat as measured by MRI‐PDFF (mean difference between the ezetimibe and placebo arms ‐1.3%, P = 0.4). Compared to baseline, however, end‐of‐treatment MRI‐PDFF was significantly lower in the ezetimibe arm (15%‐11.6%, P < 0.016) but not in the placebo arm (18.5%‐16.4%, P = 0.15). There were no significant differences in histologic response rates, serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, or longitudinal changes in two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional magnetic resonance elastography‐derived liver stiffness between the ezetimibe and placebo arms. Compared to histologic nonresponders (25/35), histologic responders (10/35) had a significantly greater reduction in MRI‐PDFF (‐4.35 ± 4.9% versus ‐0.30 ± 4.1%, P < 0.019). Conclusions : Ezetimibe did not significantly reduce liver fat in NASH. This trial demonstrates the application of colocalization of MRI‐PDFF‐derived fat maps and magnetic resonance elastography‐derived stiffness maps of the liver before and after treatment to noninvasively assess treatment response in NASH. (H epatology 2015;61:1239–1250)