Prospective trial demonstrates non-contrast MRI improves HCC screening accuracy in patients with cirrhosis, suggesting enhanced detection rates.
AIM: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of a rapid abbreviated non-contrast MRI (AMRI) protocol compared to ultrasound (US) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in a high-risk population with cirrhosis. METHODS: This prospective, single-center, diagnostic accuracy study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05716620) enrolled patients with cirrhosis and annual HCC risk >5%. Participants underwent paired screening with US and non-contrast AMRI across two rounds, six months apart. Patients with positive findings on either imaging modality or clinical suspicion of HCC underwent multiphasic contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) as the reference standard. The primary outcome was HCC detection rate (per-patient sensitivity) comparing AMRI and US. RESULTS: In 614 paired screening examinations across 404 patients, 97 underwent CE-MRI (based on positive screening), identifying 39 HCCs in 37 patients. AMRI demonstrated significantly superior sensitivity (94.6% [95% CI: 83.3-98.9] vs. 51.4% [95% CI: 34.7-67.8]; p<0.001) and specificity (96.6% [95% CI: 88.9-99.5] vs. 69.5% [95% CI: 55.8-80.8]; p<0.001). AUROC was 0.956 [95% CI: 0.913-0.997] vs. 0.604 [95% CI: 0.469-0.738] (p<0.001). In the per-lesion analysis, AMRI detected 37 of 39 lesions (94.9%) vs. US 20 of 39 (51.3%). Of HCCs detected by AMRI, 97.3% were early-stage (BCLC 0 or A). Interobserver agreement was "almost perfect" for AMRI (κ=0.929) vs. "moderate" for US (κ=0.631). CONCLUSION: A rapid, non-contrast AMRI protocol shows superior per-patient sensitivity compared to US for HCC detection in cirrhotic patients under surveillance. While these diagnostic findings are encouraging, prospective trials evaluating patient-level outcomes are essential before definitive guideline recommendations can be made.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: