Diagnostic performance of MRI using extracellular contrast agents versus gadoxetic acid for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

MRI Using Gadoxetic Acid in the Work-Up of Liver Nodules Not Conclusively Benign in Budd-Chiari Syndrome: A Prospective Long-Term Follow-Up

Introduction

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) is unknown and there is no validated diagnostic work-up to define the liver nodules with arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE), suggesting malignancy. This prospective study evaluates HCC incidence in a Western cohort of patients with BCS and assesses the performance of MRI with hepatobiliary contrast (HB-MRI) for nodule characterization.

Methods

Patients with BCS followed in our hospital were prospectively evaluated by MRI with extracellular contrast (EC-MRI). Nodules with APHE categorized as non-conclusively benign by 2 radiologists were studied by HB-MRI and reviewed by 2 radiologists blinded to the EC-MRI results. A new EC-MRI 1 year later and clinical, analytical, and sonographic follow-up every 6 months for a median of 10 years was performed.

Results

A total of 55 non-conclusively benign nodules with APHE were detected at EC-MRI in 41 patients. While 32 of them were suggestive of HCC by EC-MRI, all the 55 nodules showed increased uptake of hepatobiliary contrast. An unequivocal central scar was seen in 12/55 nodules at HB-MRI regardless of it was not detected on the EC-MRI. None of the nodules was hypointense in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP). HCC was not detected during a median of 10 years of follow-up.

Conclusions

Detection of nodules with APHE is frequent in patients with BCS, but HCC is rare in Western patients with BCS. While EC-MRI may detect nodules suggesting malignancy, the identification of contrast uptake in the HBP at HB-MRI may help categorize them as benign.

Liver imaging reporting and data system diagnostic performance in hepatocellular carcinoma when modifying the definition of "washout" on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The sensitivity of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) was suboptimal. This study evaluated the LI-RADS diagnostic performance in HCC when modifying the definition of washout using the transition phase (TP) or hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity on EOB-MRI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients at high risk of HCC who underwent EOB-MRI from June 2016 to June 2021. Three modified LI-RADS (mLI-RADS) algorithms were formulated according to different definitions of washout as follows: (a) portal venous phase (PVP) or TP hypointensity, (b) PVP or HBP hypointensity, and (c) PVP or TP or HBP hypointensity. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, was compared between mLI-RADS and LI-RADS v2018 using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients with 426 pathologically confirmed hepatic observations (250 HCCs, 88 nonHCC malignancies, and 88 benign lesions) were included in our study. The sensitivity rates of mLI-RADS a-c (80.0 %, 80.8 %, and 80.8 %) were all higher than that of LI-RADS v2018 (74.4 %) (all p < 0.05). The specificity rates of mLI-RADS a-c (86.9 %, 85.8 %, and 85.8 %) were all slightly lower than that of LI-RADS v2018 (88.6 %), although no statistically significant difference was noted (all p > 0.05). The accuracies of the three mLI-RADS algorithms were the same and were all higher than that of LI-RADS v2018 (82.9 % vs. 80.3 %, all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

When the definition of washout appearance was extended to TP or HBP hypointensity on EOB-MRI, the diagnostic sensitivity of LI-RADS for HCC improved without decreasing specificity.

Magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response evaluation and prognostication of hepatocellular carcinoma after thermal ablation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for the vast majority of primary liver cancer and constitutes a major global health challenge. Tumor ablation with either radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or microwave ablation (MWA) is recommended as a curative-intent treatment for early-stage HCC. Given the widespread use of thermal ablation in routine clinical practice, accurate evaluation of treatment response and patient outcomes has become crucial in optimizing individualized management strategies. Noninvasive imaging occupies the central role in the routine management of patients with HCC. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could provide full wealth of information with respect to tumor morphology, hemodynamics, function and metabolism. With accumulation of liver MR imaging data, radiomics analysis has been increasingly applied to capture tumor heterogeneity and provide prognostication by extracting high-throughput quantitative imaging features from digital medical images. Emerging evidence suggests the potential role of several qualitative, quantitative and radiomic MRI features in prediction of treatment response and patient prognosis after ablation of HCC. Understanding the advancements of MRI in the evaluation of ablated HCCs may facilitate optimal patient care and improved outcomes. This review provides an overview of the emerging role of MRI in treatment response evaluation and prognostication of HCC patients undergoing ablation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI-based parameters can help predict treatment response and patient prognosis after HCC ablation and thus guide treatment planning. KEY POINTS: 1. ECA-MRI provides morphological and hemodynamic assessment of ablated HCC. 2. EOB-MRI provides more information for tumor response prediction after ablation. 3. DWI improve the characterization of HCC and optimize treatment decision. 4. Radiomics analysis enables characterization of tumor heterogeneity guidance of clinical decision-making. 5. Further studies with multiple radiologists and sufficient follow-up period are needed.

LI-RADS: Looking Back, Looking Forward

Since its initial release in 2011, the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has evolved and expanded in scope. It started as a single algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis with CT or MRI with extracellular contrast agents and has grown into a multialgorithm network covering all major liver imaging modalities and contexts of use. Furthermore, it has developed its own lexicon, report templates, and supplementary materials. This article highlights the major achievements of LI-RADS in the past 11 years, including adoption in clinical care and research across the globe, and complete unification of HCC diagnostic systems in the United States. Additionally, the authors discuss current gaps in knowledge, which include challenges in surveillance, diagnostic population definition, perceived complexity, limited sensitivity of LR-5 (definite HCC) category, management implications of indeterminate observations, challenges in reporting, and treatment response assessment following radiation-based therapies and systemic treatments. Finally, the authors discuss future directions, which will focus on mitigating the current challenges and incorporating advanced technologies. Tha authors envision that LI-RADS will ultimately transform into a probability-based system for diagnosis and prognostication of liver cancers that will integrate patient characteristics and quantitative imaging features, while accounting for imaging modality and contrast agent.

Value of threshold growth as a major diagnostic feature of hepatocellular carcinoma in LI-RADS

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Liver Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 simplified the definition of threshold growth to '≥50% size increase in a mass in ≤6 months'. However, the diagnostic value of threshold growth for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remained unclear. We evaluated the value of threshold growth, as defined by LI-RADS v2018, in diagnosing HCCs.

METHODS

Patients who underwent preoperative gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI because of the presence of LI-RADS category 2, 3, or 4 rather than category 5 on prior CT/MRI between January 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. Pathologic or clinical diagnoses were used as reference standards. Imaging features were evaluated by three readers according to LI-RADS v2018. The frequency and diagnostic odds ratio of threshold growth were calculated. The diagnostic performance of LI-RADS category 5 was separately evaluated when threshold growth was and was not considered a major feature, and results were compared using generalized estimation equations. Subgroups of patients who underwent CT/MRI during the previous 3-6 months were analyzed.

RESULTS

Analysis of 340 observations in 243 patients found that the frequency of threshold growth was 18.8% and it gradually increased over time. Threshold growth was significantly associated with HCC (diagnostic odds ratio 5.2; 95% CI 2.1-12.7; p <0.001). Use of threshold growth as a major feature significantly increased sensitivity in both the overall (66.4% vs. 57.3%, p <0.001) and subgroup (73.4% vs. 58.2%, p <0.001) cohorts, but had no effect on specificity in either the overall (97.5% vs. 98.3%, p = 0.319) or subgroup (95.9% vs. 98.0%, p = 0.323) cohorts.

CONCLUSION

The revised threshold growth of LI-RADS v2018 was significantly associated with HCC. Use of threshold growth as a major diagnostic feature of HCC can improve the sensitivity of LI-RADS v2018.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

We found that the revised threshold growth in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 (LI-RADS v2018) was a significant predictor of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The use of threshold growth as a major imaging feature of HCC significantly increased the sensitivity of LI-RADS v2018, especially small HCCs (≤3.0 cm), compared with its non-use. Because these small HCCs are eligible for curative treatments, the additional detection of small HCCs is clinically meaningful.

Reliability of extracellular contrast versus gadoxetic acid in assessing small liver lesions using liver imaging reporting and data system v.2018 and European association for the study of the liver criteria

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v.2018 and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria for the diagnosis of HCC have been widely evaluated, but their reliability should be investigated. We aimed to assess and compare the reliability of LI-RADS v.2018 and EASL criteria for the diagnosis of HCC using MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECAs) and gadoxetic acid (GA) and determine the effect of ancillary features on LI-RADS reliability.

APPROACH & RESULTS

Ten readers reviewed MRI studies of 92 focal liver lesions measuring <3 cm acquired with ECAs and GA <1 month apart from two prospective trials, assessing EASL criteria, LI-RADS major and ancillary features, and LI-RADS categorization with and without including ancillary features. Inter-reader agreement for definite HCC diagnosis was substantial and similar for the two contrasts for both EASL and LI-RADS criteria. For ECA-MRI and GA-MRI, respectively, inter-reader agreement was k = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.81) and k = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.80); for nonrim hyperenhancement, k = 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72) and k = 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48-0.66); and for nonperipheral washout, k = 0.49 (95% CI, 0.40-0.59) and k = 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37-0.58) for enhancing capsule. The inter-reader agreement for LI-RADS after applying ancillary features remained in the same range of agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement for definite HCC was substantial and similar for both scoring systems and the two contrast agents in small focal liver lesions. Agreement for LI-RADS categorization was lower for both contrast agents, and including LI-RADS ancillary features did not improve agreement.

The diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT versus extracellular contrast agent-enhanced MRI in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis

To compare the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) with extracellular contrast agent-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (ECA-MRI) for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched (1/5/2021) for studies comparing contrast-enhanced CT with ECA-MRI in patients suspected of HCC. Studies without head-to-head comparison were excluded. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and summary area under the curve (sAUC) of contrast-enhanced CT and ECA-MRI in detecting HCC was calculated based on bivariate random effects model. Heterogeneity test included threshold effect analysis and meta-regression. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to lesion size (< 20 mm or ≥ 20 mm). Overall, 10 articles containing 1333 patients were deemed suitable for inclusion in this meta-analysis. ECA-MRI displayed increased sensitivity to contrast-enhanced CT in detecting HCC (0.77 vs. 0.63, P < 0.01). The difference in specificity between ECA-MRI and contrast-enhanced CT was not statistically significant (0.93 vs. 0.94, P = 0.25). ECA-MRI yielded higher diagnostic accuracy (sAUCs = 0.88 vs. 0.80, P < 0.01). In the subgroup analysis with a lesion size < 20 mm, ECA-MRI allowed significant gains of accuracy compared to contrast-enhanced CT (0.79 vs. 0.72, P = 0.02). ECA-MRI also outperformed contrast-enhanced CT in patients with lesion size ≥ 20 mm (sAUCs = 0.96 vs. 0.93, P = 0.04). ECA-MRI provided higher sensitivity and accuracy than contrast-enhanced CT in detecting HCC, especially lesions size < 20 mm.

Gadoxetate-Enhanced MRI as a Diagnostic Tool in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Report from a 2020 Asia-Pacific Multidisciplinary Expert Meeting

Gadoxetate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used in clinical practice for liver imaging. For optimal use, we must understand both its advantages and limitations. This article is the outcome of an online advisory board meeting and subsequent discussions by a multidisciplinary group of experts on liver diseases across the Asia-Pacific region, first held on September 28, 2020. Here, we review the technical considerations for the use of gadoxetate, its current role in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and its relevance in consensus guidelines for HCC imaging diagnosis. In the latter part of this review, we examine recent evidence evaluating the impact of gadoxetate on clinical outcomes on a continuum from diagnosis to treatment decision-making and follow-up. In conclusion, we outline the potential future roles of gadoxetate MRI based on an evolving understanding of the clinical utility of this contrast agent in the management of patients at risk of, or with, HCC.

Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and third in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-fetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study (computed tomography (CT) or MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is considered valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to surgical resection could improve the prognosis. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma may, therefore, be missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of MRI in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 9 November 2021. We manually searched articles retrieved, contacted experts, handsearched abstract books from meetings held during the last 10 years, and searched for literature in OpenGrey (9 November 2021). Further information was requested by e-mails, but no additional information was provided. No data was obtained through correspondence with investigators. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and we tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies, with 4841 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability, we judged 15% (5/34) of studies to be at low concern and 85% (29/34) of studies to be at high concern mostly owing to characteristics of the participants, most of whom were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation, and due to pathology of the explanted liver being the only reference standard. MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 84.4% (95% CI 80.1% to 87.9%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 90.1% to 96.1%) (34 studies, 4841 participants; low-certainty evidence). MRI for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI 77.6% to 89.3%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 88.3% to 95.9%) (16 studies, 2150 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that using MRI as a second-line imaging modality to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 16% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 16% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Do transition and hepatobiliary phase hypointensity improve LI-RADS categorization as an alternative washout: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The definition of washout in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI) is controversial. The current Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) defines washout only in the portal venous phase on Gd-EOB-MRI, leading to low diagnostic sensitivity for HCC. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of Gd-EOB-MRI using conventional (cWO) and modified (mWO) definitions of washout.

METHODS

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 1, 2021, that compared the diagnostic performance of cWO and mWO for HCC. The mWOs added transition phase (TP) hypointensity (mWO-1), hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity (mWO-2), or both (mWO-3). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Study heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Ten comparative studies with 2391 patients were included. Compared to cWO, the overall mWO yielded significantly higher sensitivity (71% vs. 81%, p = 0.00) and lower specificity (97% vs. 93%, p = 0.01) for diagnosing HCC. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.90 and 0.94 for the cWO and mWO, respectively. Regarding the three types of mWOs, mWO-2 showed the highest sensitivity (85%) and specificity (96%) for diagnosing HCC. mWO-2 achieved the highest AUC (0.97), followed by mWO-1 (0.90), and mWO-3 (0.89). Average reviewer experience and scanner field strength were significantly associated with study heterogeneity (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of TP and HBP hypointensity in the definition of washout improved the sensitivity with slightly lower specificity for diagnosing HCC in LI-RADS.

KEY POINTS

• Compared to the conventional definition of washout, studies using a modified definition had higher sensitivity (71% vs. 81%) but lower specificity (97% vs. 93%) in LI-RADS for the diagnosis of HCC. • Hepatobiliary phase hypointensity may be a preferred alternative washout for HCC diagnosis with the highest area under the curve. • Studies with experienced reviewer or 3.0T MRI showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity for diagnosing HCC when using modified washout (p < 0.05).

Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in oncology patients receiving gadoxetic acid and updated risk of estimate of NSF in patients receiving gadoxetic acid with moderate and severe renal impairment

OBJECTIVES

Gadoxetic acid (GA) is a half-biliary excreted gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) administered at lower dose than gadobenic acid with similar ionic structure. Gadobenic acid is considered low-risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients with impaired renal function; however, safety of GA is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of NSF in oncology patients undergoing GA-enhanced MRI and to update the risk estimate of NSF in patients receiving GA with severe renal impairment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified GA-enhanced MRI performed for treatment planning in confirmed cancer patients between March 2011 and December 2020. Serum creatinine values within 180 days of GA administration were retrieved and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated. The eGFR value nearest to each MRI examination was used. The search result was linked to a prospectively maintained registry of reported cases of NSF. An updated literature review was conducted to identify published cases of NSF related to GA administration in patients with severe renal impairment (eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² or on dialysis) and the incidence of NSF with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was determined combining published data with our results.

RESULTS

192 oncology patients underwent GA-enhanced MRI, mean age was 65.6 ± 11.8 years with 73 women. The mean eGFR was 89.6 ± 33.0 mL/min/1.73 m². There were 33 patients with moderate (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m²) and 1 patient with severe (eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) renal impairment. There were no reported cases of NSF. Updated literature review including our results identified 340 patients with severe renal impairment or on dialysis with zero cases of NSF (0/340; 95% confidence intervals 0% and 0.9%).

CONCLUSION

No cases of NSF were documented in this study related to gadoxetic acid use in oncology patients, including those with moderate and severe renal impairment. Recent data indicate use of gadoxetic acid in patients with renal impairment can be considered low-risk.

Imaging Diagnosis of HCC: Future directions with special emphasis on hepatobiliary MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a unique cancer entity that can be noninvasively diagnosed using imaging modalities without pathologic confirmation. In 2018, several major guidelines for HCC were updated to include hepatobiliary contrast agent magnetic resonance imaging (HBA-MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as major imaging modalities for HCC diagnosis. HBA-MRI enables the achievement of high sensitivity in HCC detection using the hepatobiliary phase (HBP). CEUS is another imaging modality with real-time imaging capability, and it is reported to be useful as a second-line modality to increase sensitivity without losing specificity for HCC diagnosis. However, until now, there is an unsolved discrepancy among guidelines on whether to accept “HBP hypointensity” as a definite diagnostic criterion for HCC or include CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm for HCC diagnosis. Furthermore, there is variability in terminology and inconsistencies in the definition of imaging findings among guidelines; therefore, there is an unmet need for the development of a standardized lexicon. In this article, we review the performance and limitations of HBA-MRI and CEUS after guideline updates in 2018 and briefly introduce some future aspects of imaging-based HCC diagnosis.

MR Imaging Contrast Agents: Role in Imaging of Chronic Liver Diseases

Contrast-enhanced MR imaging plays an important role in the evaluation of patients with chronic liver disease, particularly for detection and characterization of liver lesions. The two most commonly used contrast agents for liver MR imaging are extracellular agents (ECAs) and hepatobiliary agents (HBAs). In patients with liver disease, the main advantage of ECA-enhanced MR imaging is its high specificity for the diagnosis of progressed HCCs. Conversely, HBAs have an additional contrast mechanism, which results in high liver-to-lesion contrast and highest sensitivity for lesion detection in the hepatobiliary phase. Emerging data suggest that features depicted on contrast-enhanced MR imaging scans are related to tumor biology and are predictive of patients' prognosis, likely to further expand the role of contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the clinical care of patients with chronic liver disease.