Prospective evaluation of Gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography for hepatocellular carcinoma detection and transplant eligibility assessment with explant histopathology correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) and contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection and liver transplant (LT) eligibility assessment in cirrhotic patients with explant histopathology correlation. METHODS: In this prospective, single-institution ethics-approved study, 101 cirrhotic patients were enrolled consecutively from the pre-LT clinic with written informed consent. Patients underwent CECT and EOB-MRI alternately every 3 months until LT or study exclusion. Two blinded radiologists independently scored hepatic lesions on CECT and EOB-MRI utilizing the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) version 2018. Liver explant histopathology was the reference standard. Pre-LT eligibility accuracies with EOB-MRI and CECT as per Milan criteria (MC) were assessed in reference to post-LT explant histopathology. Lesion-level and patient-level statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty patients (49 men; age 33-72 years) underwent LT successfully. One hundred four non-treated HCC and 42 viable HCC in previously treated HCC were identified at explant histopathology. For LR-4/5 category lesions, EOB-MRI had a higher pooled sensitivity (86.7% versus 75.3%, p < 0.001) but lower specificity (84.6% versus 100%, p < 0.001) compared to CECT. EOB-MRI had a sensitivity twice that of CECT (65.9% versus 32.2%, p < 0.001) when all HCC identified at explant histopathology were included in the analysis instead of imaging visible lesions only. Disregarding the hepatobiliary phase resulted in a significant drop in EOB-MRI performance (86.7 to 72.8%, p < 0.001). EOB-MRI had significantly lower pooled sensitivity and specificity versus CECT in the LR5 category with lesion size < 2 cm (50% versus 79%, p = 0.002 and 88.9% versus 100%, p = 0.002). EOB-MRI had higher sensitivity (84.8% versus 75%, p < 0.037) compared to CECT for detecting < 2 cm viable HCC in treated lesions. Accuracies of LT eligibility assessment were comparable between EOB-MRI (90-91.7%, p = 0.156) and CECT (90-95%, p = 0.158). CONCLUSION: EOB-MRI had superior sensitivity for HCC detection; however, with lower specificity compared to CECT in LR4/5 category lesions while it was inferior to CECT in the LR5 category under 2 cm. The accuracy for LT eligibility assessment based on MC was not significantly different between EOB-MRI and CECT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03342677 , Registered: November 17, 2017.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".