Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of hepatocyte-specific gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) enhanced MR imaging and contrast enhanced CT for the detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and impact on patient management of hepatocyte-specific gadoxetic acid enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (GA-MRI) compared to contrast enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in patients with liver metastases.

Method

Four biomedical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, York CRD) were searched from January 1991 to February 2016. Studies investigating the accuracy or management impact of GA-MRI compared to CE-CT in patients with known or suspected liver metastases were included. Bias was evaluated using QUADAS-II. Univariate meta-analysis of sensitivity ratios (RR) were conducted in the absence of heterogeneity, calculated using I 2, Tau values (τ) and prediction intervals.

Results

Nine diagnostic accuracy studies (537 patients with 1216 lesions) and four change in management studies (488 patients with 281 lesions) were included. Per-lesion sensitivity and specificity estimates for GA-MRI ranged from 86.9–100.0 % and 80.2–98.0 %, respectively, compared to 51.8–84.6 % and 77.2–98.0 % for CE-CT. Meta-analysis found GA-MRI to be significantly more sensitive than CE-CT (RR = 1.29, 95 % CI = 1.18–1.40, P < 0.001), with equivalent specificity (RR = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.910–1.042, P = 0.44). The largest difference was observed for lesions smaller than 10 mm for which GA-MRI was significantly more sensitive (RR = 2.21, 95 % CI = 1.47–3.32, P < 0.001) but less specific (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.87–0.98, P = 0.008). GA-MRI affected clinical management in 26 of 155 patients (16.8 %) who had a prior CE-CT; however, no studies investigated the consequences of using GA-MRI instead of CE-CT.

Conclusion

GA-MRI is significantly more sensitive than CE-CT for detecting liver metastases, which leads to a modest impact on patient management in the context of an equivocal CE-CT result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ismaili N (2011) Treatment of colorectal liver metastases. World J Surg Oncol 9:154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Sheth KR, Clary BM (2005) Management of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 18:215–223

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiol 257:674–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsoulfas G, Pramateftakis MG (2012) Management of rectal cancer and liver metastatic disease: which comes first? Int J Surg Oncol 2012:196908

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bengtsson G, Carlsson G, Hafstrom L, Jonsson PE (1981) Natural history of patients with untreated liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Am J Surg 141:586–589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin Q, Ye Q, Zhu D, Wei Y, Ren L, Ye L et al (2014) Determinants of long-term outcome in patients undergoing simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal liver metastases. PLoS One 9:e105747

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kulaylat AN, Bhayani NH, Stokes AL, Schubart JR, Wong J, Kimchi ET et al (2014) Determinants of repeat curative intent surgery in colorectal liver metastasis. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1894–1901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fong Y, Fortner J, Sun RL, Brennan MF, Blumgart LH (1999) Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 230:309–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Treska V, Liska V, Skalicky T, Sutnar A, Treskova I, Narsanska A et al (2012) Non-colorectal liver metastases: surgical treatment options. Hepatogastroenterol 59:245–248

    Google Scholar 

  10. Floriani I, Torri V, Rulli E, Garavaglia D, Compagnoni A, Salvolini L et al (2010) Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:19–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bipat S, van Leeuwen MS, Comans EF, Pijl ME, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH et al (2005) Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis—meta-analysis. Radiol 237:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Maffione AM, Lopci E, Bluemel C, Giammarile F, Herrmann K, Rubello D (2015) Diagnostic accuracy and impact on management of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:152–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Seo HJ, Kim MJ, Lee JD, Chung WS, Kim YE (2011) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Investig Radiol 46:548–555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Westwood M, Joore M, Grutters J, Redekop K, Armstrong N, Lee K et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue(R) (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 17:1–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu LM, Hu J, Gu HY, Hua J, Xu JR (2013) Can diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) alone be used as a reliable sequence for the preoperative detection and characterisation of hepatic metastases? A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 49:572–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen L, Zhang J, Zhang L, Bao J, Liu C, Xia Y et al (2012) Meta-analysis of gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of liver metastases. PLoS One 7:e48681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Australian Department of Health 2014 Final protocol to guide the assessment of magnetic resonance imaging of liver lesions. Available from: http://goo.gl/uNAK0G. Accessed 15 Sept 2015

  18. Leeflang MM, Scholten RJ, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM (2006) Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol 59:234–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JW (2002) Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ 324:477–480

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1290–1299

    Google Scholar 

  22. Downs S, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377–384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins, JPT, Green S 2011 Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 5.1.0 edn. The Cochrane Collaboration

  24. Chan VO, Das JP, Gerstenmaier JF, Geoghegan J, Gibney RG, Collins CD et al (2012) Diagnostic performance of MDCT, PET/CT and gadoxetic acid (Primovist(R))-enhanced MRI in patients with colorectal liver metastases being considered for hepatic resection: initial experience in a single centre. Ir J Med Sci 181:499–509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim HJ, Lee SS, Byun JH, Kim JC, Yu CS, Park SH et al (2015) Incremental value of liver MR imaging in patients with potentially curable colorectal hepatic metastasis detected at CT: a prospective comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging, and a combination of both MR techniques. Radiol 274:712–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim YK, Park G, Kim CS, Yu HC, Han YM (2012) Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for the detection and characterisation of liver metastases: comparison with multidetector-row CT. Br J Radiol 85:539–547

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee KH, Lee JM, Park JH, Kim JH, Park HS, Yu MH et al (2013) MR imaging in patients with suspected liver metastases: value of liver-specific contrast agent gadoxetic acid. Korean J Radiol 14:894–904

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Motosugi U, Tomoaki Ichikawa M, Hiroyuki Morisaka M, Hironobu Sou M, Ali Muhi M, Kazufumi Kimura M et al (2011) Detection of pancreatic carcinoma and liver metastases with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: comparison with contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiol 260:446–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Muhi A, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U, Sou H, Nakajima H, Sano K et al (2011) Diagnosis of colorectal hepatic metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced CT, contrast-enhanced US, superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MRI, and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:326–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Patel S, Cheek S, Osman H, Jeyarajah DMRI (2014) With gadoxetate disodium for colorectal liver metastasis: is it the new “imaging modality of choice”? J Gastrointest Surg 18:2130–2135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Scharitzer M, Ba-Ssalamah A, Ringl H, Kolblinger C, Grunberger T, Weber M et al (2013) Preoperative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases: comparison between gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0-T MRI and contrast-enhanced MDCT with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol 23:2187–2196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schulz A, Viktil E, Godt JC, Johansen CK, Dormagen JB, Holtedahl JE, et al. 2015 Diagnostic performance of CT, MRI and PET/CT in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: the superiority of MRI. Acta Radiol

  33. Cho JY, Lee YJ, Han HS, Yoon YS, Kim J, Choi Y et al (2015) Role of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of small hepatic lesions in patients with colorectal cancer. World J Surg 39:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zech CJ, Korpraphong P, Huppertz A, Denecke T, Kim MJ, Tanomkiat W et al (2014) Randomized multicentre trial of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI versus conventional MRI or CT in the staging of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Br J Surg 101:613–621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2014) Cancer in Australia: an overview. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra 2014 Cat. no. CAN 75

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schmidt RL, Factor RE (2013) Understanding sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:558–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Linnet K, Moons KG (2012) Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem 58:1636–1643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Merlin T, Lehman S, Hiller JE, Ryan P (2013) The “linked evidence approach” to assess medical tests: a critical analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29:343–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Dr. Tamsin Garrod, Ms. Anje Scarfe and Ms. Robyn Lambert for their contribution to the data extraction, and Associate Professor Wendy Babidge for reviewing the draft manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures—Surgical (ASERNIP-S), The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 199 Ward Street, North Adelaide, South Australia, 5006, Australia

    Thomas D. Vreugdenburg, Ning Ma, Joanna K. Duncan, Dagmara Riitano, Alun L. Cameron & Guy J. Maddern

  2. Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide and The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Guy J. Maddern

Authors
  1. Thomas D. Vreugdenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ning Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna K. Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dagmara Riitano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alun L. Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guy J. Maddern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas D. Vreugdenburg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Grant support

No funding was received for the completion of this manuscript. The authors report no financial interests or other competing interests with respect to this publication. No manufacturer or industry body funded this research, or played any role in conducting the study, collection of data or presentation of results.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 190 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vreugdenburg, T.D., Ma, N., Duncan, J.K. et al. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of hepatocyte-specific gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) enhanced MR imaging and contrast enhanced CT for the detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 31, 1739–1749 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2664-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2664-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation