Clinical usefulness of multiple arterial-phase images in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

The multiple arterial-phase (AP) technique was introduced for liver MRI, but it is not really known if multiple AP MRI (MA-MRI) improves image quality and lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI in comparison with single AP MRI (SA-MRI). We aimed to determine the clinical usefulness of MA-MRI in comparison with SA-MRI. Original articles reporting the percentage of adequate AP imaging and the lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MA-MRI were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging and lesion detection rate were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis of single proportions. Subgroup analysis was performed to explain causes of study heterogeneity, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test. Of 772 articles screened, 22 studies in 12 articles were included: 18 studies (ten MA-MRI and eight SA-MRI) suitably defined the percentage of adequate AP imaging and four (three MA-MRI and one SA-MRI) defined the lesion detection rate. MA-MRI had 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than SA-MRI (94.8% vs. 78.7%, p < 0.01). MA-MRI additionally detected 33.2% of lesions than SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.06). Substantial study heterogeneity was found in MA-MRI, and the definition of adequate AP imaging, lesion characteristics, and reference standards were significant factors affecting study heterogeneity (p ≤ 0.02). Significant publication bias was found in MA-MRI (p < 0.01) but not in SA-MRI studies (p = 0.87). Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MA-MRI may be more clinically useful than SA-MRI, but further study is necessary to validate this finding because of study heterogeneity and publication bias. • Multiple arterial-phase MRI (MA-MRI) had a 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than single arterial-phase MRI (SA-MRI) (94.8% vs. 78.7%, p < 0.01). • MA-MRI additionally detected an extra 33.2% of lesions compared with SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.06). • Substantial study heterogeneity and significant publication bias were found across MA-MRI studies.