Comparison of unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in detecting very small hepatocellular carcinoma

Table 1 Background of hepatocellular carcinoma patients (≤ 2 cm in diameter) who underwent unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging and unenhanced ultrasound simultaneously

Background of patients
Number of patients	102
Age (yr)	72.4 ± 9.6
Sex (%)
Male	52 (51.0)
Female	50 (49.0)
Etiology (%)
HBV	13 (12.9)
HCV	61 (60.3)
Alcohol	14 (13.9)
NBNC	7 (6.9)
Autoimmune	2 (2.0)
NASH	2 (2.0)
PBC	1 (1.0)
Others	2 (2.0)

HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCV: Hepatitis C virus; NBNC: Non-B non-C; NASH: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; PBC: Primary biliary cirrhosis.

Table 2 Location of hepatocellular carcinoma in the liver in patients for whom detection by ultrasound was unsuccessful

Location in the liver	Number of patients (%)
S1-4	6 (20.7)
S5-6	8 (27.6)
S7-8	15 (51.7)

Table 3 Treatment methods for hepatocellular carcinoma in 102 very small hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Therapy	Number of treated patients
Hepatectomy	19
RFA	58
TACE	14
TACE + RFA	2
TAI	1
Chemotherapy	2
BSC	3
Others	3

BSC: Best supportive care; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; TACE: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; TAI: Transcatheter arterial infusion.

Table 4 Reported sensitivity of unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging to detect very small hepatocellular carcinomas (≤ 2 cm in diameter) between 2001 and 2003

Ref.	Sensitivity (%)
Krinsky et al[27], 2001	7/15 (46.7)
de Lédinghen et al[28], 2002	33/54 (61.1)
Libbrecht et al[25], 2002	7/10 (70.0)
Bhartia et al[30], 2003	15/21 (71.4)
Burrel et al[31], 2003	23/41 (56.1)
Pooled estimates	85/141 (60.3)
	95%CI: 52.2-68.4

CI: Confidence interval.