Comparison of MRI and CT for the Prediction of Microvascular Invasion in Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma Based on a Non‐Radiomics and Radiomics Method: Which Imaging Modality Is Better?

Xiang‐Pan Meng,Yuan‐Cheng Wang,Jia‐Ying Zhou,Qian Yu,Chun‐Qiang Lu,Cong Xia,Tian‐Yu Tang,Jiajia Xu,Ke Sun,Wenbo Xiao,Shenghong Ju
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27575
IF: 4.4
2021-02-23
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both capable of predicting microvascular invasion (MVI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, which modality is better is unknown.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Purpose</h3><p>To intraindividually compare CT and MRI for predicting MVI in solitary HCC and investigate the added value of radiomics analyses.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Study Type</h3><p>Retrospective.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Subjects</h3><p>Included were 402 consecutive patients with HCC (training set:validation set = 300:102).</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Field Strength/Sequence</h3><p>T2‐weighted, diffusion‐weighted, and contrast‐enhanced T1‐weighted imaging MRI at 3.0T and contrast‐enhanced CT.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Assessment</h3><p>CT‐ and MR‐based radiomics signatures (RS) were constructed using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression. CT‐ and MR‐based radiologic (R) and radiologic‐radiomics (RR) models were developed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. The performance of the RS/models was compared between two modalities. To investigate the added value of RS, the performance of the R models was compared with the RR models in HCC of all sizes and 2–5 cm in size.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Statistical Tests</h3><p>Model performance was quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared using the Delong test.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Histopathologic MVI was identified in 161 patients (training set:validation set = 130:31). MRI‐based RS/models tended to have a marginally higher AUC than CT‐based RS/models (AUCs of CT vs. MRI, <i>P</i>: RS, 0.801 vs. 0.804, 0.96; R model, 0.809 vs. 0.832, 0.09; RR model, 0.835 vs. 0.872, 0.54). The improvement of RR models over R models in all sizes was not significant (<i>P</i> = 0.21 at CT and 0.09 at MRI), whereas the improvement in 2–5 cm was significant at MRI (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05) but not at CT (<i>P</i> = 0.16). </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data Conclusion</h3><p>CT and MRI had a comparable predictive performance for MVI in solitary HCC. The RS of MRI only had significant added value for predicting MVI in HCC of 2–5 cm.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Level of Evidence</h3><p>3</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Technical Efficacy</h3><p>Stage 2</p></section>
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
What problem does this paper attempt to address?