Comparison of the current guidelines for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetic acid–enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

To compare the performance of current guidelines applicable to the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) using gadoxetic acid–enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Two hundred and forty-one hepatic lesions (149 HCCs, six other malignancies, 86 benign lesions) in 177 patients at risk of HCC without a history of previous treatment for hepatic malignancy in a tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. Either histopathology results or long-term (> 24 months) follow-up images were used as a standard of reference. All lesions were categorized according to the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Korean Liver Cancer Study Group-National Cancer Center (KLCSG-NCC) guidelines. The sensitivity and specificity thereof were assessed using a generalized estimation equation. For gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI, LI-RADS (95%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 88–98) and EASL (94%, 95% CI 86–97) yielded the highest specificity, while EASL yielded the lowest sensitivity (54% [95% CI 46–62]). APASL yielded the highest sensitivity (91% [95% CI 86–95]) with the lowest specificity (78% [95% CI 69–86]). KLCSG-NCC showed balanced sensitivity (85% [79–90]) and specificity (88% [95% CI 80–93]). Differences were more prominent in small nodules between 1 and 2 cm. The diagnostic performance of current guidelines for HCC on gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI was significantly different, and a potential inverse association between sensitivity and specificity was observed. • EASL and LI-RADS yielded the highest specificity with the lowest sensitivity, whereas APASL yielded the highest sensitivity with the lowest specificity. • Differences in the diagnostic performances of guidelines were prominent in small nodules between 1 and 2 cm. • Additional evaluation of CT findings improved the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy of EASL and LI-RADS. Although doing so decreased specificity, it remained above 89–90%.