Impact of hepatobiliary phase liver MRI versus Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound after an inconclusive extracellular gadolinium-based contrast-enhanced MRI for the diagnosis of benign hepatocellular tumors

Purpose To compare the added values of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in addition to inconclusive extracellular gadolinium-based contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) to characterize benign hepatocellular tumors (BHT). Methods Eighty-three BHT-46 focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and 37 hepatocellular adenomas (HCA)-with inconclusive CE-MRI in 54 patients (43 women and 11 men, mean age 42 years old ± 14.8) were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent both HBP-MRI and CEUS. Two radiologists independently reviewed 2 sets of images, SET-1: CE-MRI and HBP-MRI; SET-2: CE-MRI and CEUS, and classified lesions as “definite FNH,” “possible FNH,” or “definitely not FNH.” Sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Spe) were compared between the two sets; subgroup analyses according to the lesion’s size were performed. Results Regardless of lesion size, the respective Se and Spe of both datasets were not statistically different (95.7 and 100% vs. 76.1 and 94.6% for set-1 and -2 respectively; p = 0.18). For lesions larger than 35 mm, although both sets had similar specificity (100%), sensitivity was higher for SET-1 (100% vs. 40%); p = 0.04. Tumor classifications using SET-1 and SET-2 could have changed patient management in 35/54 (64.8%) and 33/54 (61.1%) of all patients, respectively. Conclusions HBP-MRI or CEUS should be performed after an inconclusive CE-MRI. Both can change patient management by avoiding unnecessary biopsy or surveillance. The use of HBP-MRI should be advocated over CEUS in larger (>35 mm) lesions.