Retrospective validation of a new diagnostic criterion for hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: can hypointensity on the hepatobiliary phase be used as an alternative to washout with the aid of ancillary features?

Intra-individual comparison of dual portal venous phases for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma at gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performances of first and second portal venous phases (PVP1 and PVP2) in revealing washout and capsule appearance for non-invasive HCC diagnoses in gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 123 at-risk patients with 160 hepatic observations (HCCs, n = 116; non-HCC malignancies, n = 18; benign, n = 26) showing arterial phase hyper-enhancement (APHE) ≥ 1 cm at Gd-EOB-MRI. The mean time intervals from gadoxetic acid injection to PVP1 and PVP2 acquisitions were 53 ± 2 s and 73 ± 3 s, respectively. After evaluating image findings independently, imaging findings and diagnoses were finalized by a consensus of two radiologists using either PVP1 or PVP2 image sets according to the LI-RADS v2018 or EASL criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared.

RESULTS

Among HCCs, more washout and enhancing capsule were observed in PVP2 (83.6% and 27.6%) than in PVP1 (50.9% and 19.8%) (p < 0.001, both). The PVP2 set presented significantly higher sensitivity (83.6% vs. 53.5%, LI-RADS; 82.8% vs. 50.0%, EASL; p < 0.001, both) and accuracy (0.88 vs. 0.73, LI-RADS; 0.88 vs. 0.72, EASL; p < 0.001, both) than the PVP1 set without significant specificity loss (93.2% vs. 93.2%, by LI-RADS or EASL; p = 0.32, both). None of the non-HCC malignancy was non-invasively diagnosed as HCC in both PVP image sets.

CONCLUSION

Late acquisition of PVP detected washout and enhancing capsule of HCC more sensitively than early acquisition, enabling accurate diagnoses of HCC, according to LI-RADS or EASL criteria.

KEY POINTS

• Among HCCs, more washout and enhancing capsules were observed in PVP2 than PVP1, quantitatively and qualitatively. • The portal venous phase acquired at around 70 s after contrast media administration (PVP2) provided significantly higher sensitivity and AUC value than PVP1 by using LI-RADS v2018 or EASL criteria. • More HCCs were categorized as LR-5 in PVP2 than in PVP1 images, and the specificity of PVP2 (93.5%) was comparable with PVP1 (93.5%).

Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Extracellular Contrast Detects Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Greater Accuracy Than With Gadoxetic Acid or Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used to detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of CT, MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI), and MRI with hepatobiliary agents (HBA-MRI) in the detection of HCC using the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS).

METHODS

We studied 125 participants (102 men; mean age, 55.3 years) with chronic liver disease who underwent CT, ECA-MRI, or HBA-MRI (with gadoxetic acid) before surgery for a nodule initially detected by ultrasound at a tertiary center in Korea, from November 2016 through February 2019. We collected data on major features and assigned LI-RADS categories (v2018) from CT and MRI examinations. We then compared the diagnostic performance for LR-5 for each modality alone, and in combination.

RESULTS

In total, 163 observations (124 HCCs, 13 non-HCC malignancies, and 26 benign lesions; mean size, 20.7 mm) were identified. ECA-MRI detected HCC with 83.1% sensitivity and 86.6% accuracy, compared to 64.4% sensitivity and 71.8% accuracy for CT (P < .001) and 71.2% sensitivity (P = .005) and 76.5% accuracy for HBA-MRI (P = .005); all technologies detected HCC with 97.4% specificity. Adding CT to either ECA-MRI (89.2% sensitivity, 91.4% accuracy; both P < .05) or HBA-MRI (82.8% sensitivity, 86.5% accuracy; both P < .05) significantly increased its diagnostic performance in detection of HCC compared with the MRI technologies alone. ECA-MRI identified arterial phase hyperenhancement in a significantly higher proportion of patients (97.6%) than CT (81.5%; P < .001) or HBA-MRI (89.5%; P = .002). ECA-MRI identified non-peripheral washout in 79.8% of patients, vs 74.2% of patients for CT and 73.4% of patients for HBA-MRI (differences not significant). ECA-MRI identified enhancing capsules in 85.5% of patients, vs 33.9% for CT (P < .001) and 41.4% for HBA-MRI (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In a prospective study of patients with chronic liver disease and a nodule detected by ultrasound, ECA-MRI detected HCC with higher levels of sensitivity and accuracy than CT or HBA-MRI, based on LI-RADS. Diagnostic performance was best when CT was used in combination with MRI compared with MRI alone.

A New Diagnostic Criterion with Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI May Improve the Diagnostic Performance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To prospectively establish and validate new diagnostic criterion (DC) for liver-specific contrast agents and further compared the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with conventional DC.

METHODS

Institutional Review Board approved and written informed consent were obtained for this prospective study. Two board-certified reviewers established the reference standard as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), non-HCC lesions by using marks on all cross-sectional MR images. Another 2 abdominal radiologists independently performed the marked lesion observations using 5 different DCs, including DC-1: arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and portal venous phase washout; DC-2: APHE and hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity; DC-3: APHE and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) hyperintensity; DC-4: HBP hypointensity and DWI hyperintensity; DC-5: HBP hypointensity, DWI hyperintensity and excluded these markedly T2 hyperintensity. Diagnostic performance of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for each imaging DC was calculated, per-lesion diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria were compared by using McNemars test.

RESULTS

A total of 215 patients were included (mean age 53.82 ± 11.24 years; range 24-82 years) with 265 hepatic nodules (175 HCCs and 90 non-HCCs). The DC-4 (93.71%; 164/175) and DC-5 (92.57%; 162/175) yielded the highest diagnostic sensitivity and was better than DC-1 (72.57%; 127/175), DC-2 (82.86%; 145/175), and DC-3 (82.29%; 144/175) (all p < 0.001). The specificity of DC-1 (94.44%; 85/90) was significantly higher than that with DC-2 (83.33%; 75/90), DC-3 (84.44%; 76/90), DC-4 (74.44%; 67/90), and DC-5 (82.22%; 74/90) (all p < 0.05). Additionally, the DC-4 and DC-5 achieved the highest area under curve value of 0.841 (95% CI 0.783-0.899) and 0.874 (95% CI 0.822-0.925).

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of HBP hypointensity and DWI hyperintensity as a new DC for HCC enables a high diagnostic sensitivity and comparable specificity.

Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: Changes in the 2019 World Health Organization Histological Classification System and Potential Impact on Imaging-Based Diagnosis

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is a primary liver cancer (PLC) with both hepatocytic and cholangiocytic phenotypes. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its histological classification system for cHCC-CCA. Compared to the previous WHO histological classification system, the new version no longer recognizes subtypes of cHCC-CCA with stem cell features. Furthermore, some of these cHCC-CCA subtypes with stem cell features have been recategorized as either hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (ICCs). Additionally, distinctive diagnostic terms for intermediate cell carcinomas and cholangiolocarcinomas (previous cholangiolocellular carcinoma subtype) are now recommended. It is important for radiologists to understand these changes because of its potential impact on the imaging-based diagnosis of HCC, particularly because cHCC-CCAs frequently manifest as HCC mimickers, ICC mimickers, or as indeterminate on imaging studies. Therefore, in this review, we introduce the 2019 WHO classification system for cHCC-CCA, illustrate important imaging features characteristic of its subtypes, discuss the impact on imaging-based diagnosis of HCC, and address other important considerations.

Evaluation of Primary Liver Cancers Using Hepatocyte-Specific Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Pitfalls and Potential Tips

When radiologists interpret hepatic focal lesions seen on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, it is important not only to distinguish malignant lesions from benign ones but also to distinguish nonhepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) malignancies from HCCs. In addition, most major guidelines, including those of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, European Association for the Study of the Liver, and Korean Liver Cancer Association and National Cancer Center, allow for the noninvasive imaging diagnosis of HCC in at-risk patients. However, ~40% of HCC cases show atypical imaging features mimicking non-HCC malignancies. Furthermore, several benign and malignant lesions, such as flash-filling hemangioma and intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma, frequently look like HCC. In contrast, although multiparametric MRI options, including hepatobiliary phase and diffusion-weighted imaging, provide useful information that could help address these challenges, there remain several unresolved issues with regard to the noninvasive diagnostic criteria characterizing HCC. In this article, we discuss the typical imaging features and challenging situations related to primary liver cancers in MRI, while considering how to make a correct diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.

Emerging Role of Hepatobiliary Magnetic Resonance Contrast Media and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Emphasis on Recent Updates in Major Guidelines

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be noninvasively diagnosed on the basis of its characteristic imaging findings of arterial phase enhancement and portal/delayed “washout” on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in cirrhotic patients. However, different specific diagnostic criteria have been proposed by several countries and major academic societies. In 2018, major guideline updates were proposed by the Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Korean Liver Cancer Association and National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) of Korea. In addition to dynamic CT and MRI using extracellular contrast media, these new guidelines now include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using hepatobiliary contrast media as the first-line diagnostic test, while the KLCA-NCC and EASL guidelines also include contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as the second-line diagnostic test. Therefore, hepatobiliary MR contrast media and CEUS will be increasingly used for the noninvasive diagnosis and staging of HCC. In this review, we discuss the emerging role of hepatobiliary phase MRI and CEUS for the diagnosis of HCC and also review the changes in the HCC diagnostic criteria in major guidelines, including the KLCA-NCC practice guidelines version 2018. In addition, we aimed to pay particular attention to some remaining issues in the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC.

Distinguishing intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas from hepatocellular carcinoma by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging using the Bayesian method: a bi-center study

OBJECTIVES

To determine imaging hallmarks for distinguishing intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas (IMBCs) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to validate their diagnostic ability using Bayesian statistics.

METHODS

Study 1 retrospectively identified clinical and imaging hallmarks that distinguish IMBCs (n = 41) from HCC (n = 247) using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Study 2 retrospectively assessed the diagnostic ability of these hallmarks to distinguish IMBCs (n = 37) from HCC (n = 111) using Bayesian statistics with images obtained from a different institution. We also assessed the diagnostic ability of the hallmarks in the patient subgroup with high diagnostic confidence (≥ 80% of post-test probability). Two radiologists independently evaluated the imaging findings in studies 1 and 2.

RESULTS

In study 1, arterial phase peritumoral parenchymal enhancement on CT/MRI, delayed enhancement on CT/MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging peripheral hyperintensity, and bile duct dilatation were hallmarks indicating IMBCs, whereas chronic liver disease, non-rim arterial phase hyperenhancement on CT/MRI, enhancing capsule on CT/MRI, and opposed-phase signal drop were hallmarks indicating HCC (p = 0.001-0.04). In study 2, Bayesian statistics-based post-test probability combining all hallmark features had a diagnostic accuracy of 89.2% (132/148) in distinguishing IMBCs from HCC for both readers. In the high diagnostic confidence subgroup (n = 120 and n = 124 for readers 1 and 2, respectively), the accuracy improved (95.0% (114/120) and 93.5% (116/124) for readers 1 and 2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined interpretation of CT and MRI to identify hallmark features is useful in discriminating IMBCs from HCCs. High post-test probability by Bayesian statistics allows for a more reliable non-invasive diagnosis.

KEY POINTS

• Combined interpretation of CT and MRI to identify hallmark features was useful in discriminating intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas from hepatocellular carcinoma. • Bayesian method-based post-test probability combining all hallmark features determined in study 1 showed high (> 90%) sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas from hepatocellular carcinoma. • If the post-test probability or the confidence was ≥ 80% when combining the imaging features of CT and MRI, the high specificity of > 95% was achieved without any loss of sensitivity to distinguish hepatocellular carcinoma from intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas.

Comparison of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging

Background/Aims

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) 2018 and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) 2018 criteria on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients.

Methods

This retrospective study included 273 treatment-naïve patients (71 patients with extracellular contrast agent [ECA]-MRI and 202 patients with hepatobiliary agent [HBA]-MRI; 352 lesions including 263 HCCs) with high risk of HCC who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI between 2016 and 2017. Two readers evaluated all lesions according to the criteria of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018. The per-lesion diagnostic performances were compared using the generalized estimating equation method.

Results

On ECA-MRI, the sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 were not significantly different (LR-5 vs. definite HCC: 75.8% vs. 69.4%, P=0.095 and 95.8% vs. 95.8%, P>0.999; LR-5/4 vs. definite/probable HCC: 87.1% vs.83.9%, P=0.313 and 87.5% vs. 91.7%, P=0.307). On HBA-MRI, definite HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 showed significantly higher sensitivity (79.1% vs. 68.2%, P<0.001) than LR-5 of LI-RADS 2018 without a significant difference in specificity (93.9% vs. 95.4%, P=0.314). Definite/probable HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 had higher specificity (92.3% vs. 80.0%, P=0.003) than LR-5/4 of LI-RADS 2018. The sensitivity was lower for definite/probable HCC than for LR-5/4 without statistical significance (85.6% vs. 88.1%, P=0.057).

Conclusions

On ECA-MRI, LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 showed comparable diagnostic performances. On HBA-MRI, definite HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 provided better sensitivity than LR-5 category of LI-RADS 2018 without compromising the specificity, while definite/probable HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 revealed higher specificity than LR-5/4 of LI-RADS 2018 for diagnosing HCC.

Liver imaging reporting and data system category M: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) was introduced to preserve the high specificity of LI-RADS algorithm for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to systematically determine the probability of the LR-M for HCC and non-HCC malignancy, and to determine the sources of heterogeneity between reported results.

METHODS

Original studies reporting the probability of LR-M for HCC and non-HCC malignancy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The meta-analytic pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC in LR-M were calculated. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore study heterogeneity. The meta-analytic frequency of each LR-M imaging feature was determined.

RESULTS

We found 10 studies reporting the diagnostic performance of LR-M (1819 lesions in 1631 patients), and six reporting the frequency of LR-M imaging features. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancy for LR-M were 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.8%-33.1%; I²  = 83%) and 69.6% (95% CI, 64.6%-74.1%; I²  = 83%) respectively. The study type and MRI scanner field strength were significantly associated with study heterogeneity (P ≤ .04). Of the seven imaging features, rim arterial phase hyperenhancement showed the highest frequency in both non-HCC (48.9%; 95% CI, 43.0%-54.8%) and HCC groups (9.8%; 95% CI, 6.9%-13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-M category most commonly included non-HCC malignancy but also included 28.2% of HCC. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted, and it was significantly associated with study type and MRI scanner field strength. In addition, the frequency of LR-M imaging features was variable.

Diagnostic Performance of CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2017 for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing liver imaging in patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic performance of the LR-5 category for HCC and the pooled proportions of HCCs in each LI-RADS category using CT/MRI LI-RADS v2017.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for original studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2017. Random-effects models were used to determine the summary estimates of the diagnostic performance of the LR-5 category and the pooled proportions of HCCs for each LI-RADS category. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (3 prospective studies and 11 retrospective studies) were included in the final analysis, consisting of 2056 patients, 2589 observations, and 1693 HCCs. The pooled per-observation sensitivity was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-72%) with specificity of 92% (95% CI, 88%-95%) in the LR-5 category of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2017 for diagnosing HCC. The pooled proportions of HCCs were 0% (95% CI, 0%-0%) for LR-1, 4% (95% CI, 0%-8%) for LR-2, 34% (95% CI, 23%-44%) for LR-3, 67% (95% CI, 53%-81%) for LR-4, and 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%) for LR-5. The proportions of HCCs were significantly different among LI-RADS categories 1-5 (P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-5 category of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2017 shows moderate sensitivity and high specificity for diagnosing HCC. Higher LI-RADS categories contained higher proportions of HCCs.

Comparison of guidelines for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in transplantation candidates

OBJECTIVES

To compare diagnostic performances of current guidelines for the diagnosis of HCC in LT candidates using gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI).

METHODS

Eighty-one patients (119 HCCs and 35 non-HCCs) who underwent preoperative Gd-EOB-MRI and subsequent LT were included. Per-lesion imaging diagnoses of HCCs were made using four different guidelines (American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) guidelines, and patient allocation was determined according to Milan criteria (MC). Comparisons of per-lesion sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of patient allocation between guidelines were performed using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

For diagnosis of HCC, AASLD guideline showed highest specificity (97.4%), followed by EASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines (92.1% and 92.1%, p > 0.99 and = 0.15, respectively, in comparison to AASLD), while the specificity of APASL guideline was significantly lower than that of AASLD guideline (78.9% vs. 97.4%, p = 0.006). APASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines (75.9% and 65.6%) showed significantly higher sensitivities than AASLD/EASL guidelines (34.5% and 38.8%, respectively; all ps < 0.001). For organ allocation, KLCA-NCC guideline showed higher accuracy in selecting unsuitable candidates (with non-HCC malignancies or beyond MC HCCs) than EASL guideline (68.4% vs. 31.8%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For the diagnosis of HCCs using Gd-EOB-MRI, AASLD guideline provided the highest specificity, followed by EASL, KLCA-NCC, and APASL guidelines with statistically significant difference with only APASL guideline. KLCA-NCC guideline provided the most accurate selection of unsuitable LT candidates.

KEY POINTS

• AASLD/LI-RADS showed the highest specificity, followed by EASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines. • APASL and KLCA-NCC guidelines allowed more sensitive diagnoses of HCCs. • KLCA-NCC more accurately classified patients not appropriate transplantation candidates than EASL.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of imaging criteria for HCCs ≤ 3.0 cm on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Imaging-based diagnostic systems play important roles in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of recently updated imaging criteria for HCCs ≤ 3.0 cm on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

493 nodules (399 HCCs, 24 other malignancies, 70 benign) 1.0-3.0 cm from 400 patients, including 322 male (mean age 59.3 ± 9.4 years) and 78 female (mean age 61.2 ± 9.0 years), at risk for HCC who underwent gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI between July 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Final diagnosis was determined histopathologically or clinically. The sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing HCC of the latest versions of four imaging criteria [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), Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC)] were compared using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

In 331 only pathologically diagnosed nodules, the sensitivities of both the APASL (86.8%) and KLCA-NCC criteria (85.4%) were significantly higher than the sensitivities of the EASL (71.8%) and LR-5 (71.1%) criteria (p < 0.001 for each pairwise comparison). However, the specificity of LR-5 was significantly higher than that of APASL (92.2% vs. 70.6%, respectively; p = 0.011) but did not differ significantly from the specificities of EASL (84.3%; p = 0.634) and KLCA-NCC (78.4%; p = 0.107).

CONCLUSION

Of the four international imaging criteria, LI-RADS and EASL showed high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity for diagnosing HCCs ≤ 3 cm. However, APASL and KLCA-NCC had a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than LI-RADS and EASL.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018: diagnostic value of ancillary features favoring malignancy in hypervascular observations ≥ 10 mm at intermediate (LR-3) and high probability (LR-4) for hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted in order to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS v2018 ancillary features (AFs) favoring malignancy applied to LR-3 and LR-4 observations on gadoxetate-enhanced MRI.

METHODS

In this retrospective dual-institution study, we included consecutive patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) imaged with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI between 2009 and 2014 fulfilling the following criteria: (i) at least one LR-3 or LR-4 observation ≥ 10 mm; (ii) nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement; and (iii) confirmation of benignity or malignancy by pathology or imaging follow-up. We compared the distribution of AFs between HCCs and benign observations and the diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of HCC using univariate and multivariate analyses. Significance was set at p value < 0.05.

RESULTS

Two hundred five observations were selected in 155 patients (108 M, 47 F) including 167 (81.5%) LR-3 and 38 (18.5%) LR-4. There were 126 (61.5%) HCCs and 79 (28.5%) benign lesions. A significantly larger number of AFs favoring malignancy were found in LR-3 and LR-4 lesions that progressed to HCC compared to benign lesions (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). The most common AFs favoring malignancy in HCCs were hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity (p < 0.001), transitional phase hypointensity (p < 0.001), and mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity (p < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of AFs for the diagnosis of HCC ranged 0.8-76.2% and 86.1-100%, respectively. HBP hypointensity yielded the highest sensitivity but also the lowest specificity and was the only AF remaining independently associated with the diagnosis of HCC at multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR 14.83, 95% CI 5.81-42.76, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among all AFs, HBP hypointensity yields the highest sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC.

KEY POINTS

• LR-3 and LR-4 observations diagnosed as HCC have a significantly higher number of ancillary features favoring malignancy compared to observations proven to be benign. • The presence of three or more ancillary features favoring malignancy has a high specificity (96.2%) for the diagnosis of HCC. • Among all ancillary features favoring malignancy, hepatobiliary phase hypointensity yields the highest sensitivity, but also the lowest specificity for the diagnosis of HCC.

Sirlin C, Song B, Taouli B, Yoshimitsu K, Koh DM. Consensus report from the 8th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging

OBJECTIVES

The 8th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), held in Basel, Switzerland, in October 2017, brought together clinical and academic radiologists from around the world to discuss developments in and reach consensus on key issues in the field of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI since the previous Forum held in 2013.

METHODS

Two main themes in liver MRI were considered in detail at the Forum: the use of gadoxetic acid for contrast-enhanced MRI in patients with liver cirrhosis and the technical performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI, both opportunities and challenges. This article summarises the expert presentations and the delegate voting on consensus statements discussed at the Forum.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI has higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), when compared with multidetector CT, by utilising features of hyperenhancement in the arterial phase and hypointensity in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP). Recent HCC management guidelines recognise an increasing role for gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in early diagnosis and monitoring post-resection. Additional research is needed to define the role of HBP in predicting microvascular invasion, to better define washout during the transitional phase in gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for HCC diagnosis, and to reduce the artefacts encountered in the arterial phase. Technical developments are being directed to shortening the MRI protocol for reducing time and patient discomfort and toward utilising faster imaging and non-Cartesian free-breathing approaches that have the potential to improve multiphasic dynamic imaging.

KEY POINTS

• Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI provides higher diagnostic sensitivity than CT for diagnosing HCC. • Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI has roles in early-HCC diagnosis and monitoring post-resection response. • Faster imaging and free-breathing approaches have potential to improve multiphasic dynamic imaging.

User and system pitfalls in liver imaging with LI-RADS

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver imaging, created specifically for patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the past years, LI-RADS has been progressively implemented into clinical practice, but pitfalls remain related to user error and inherent limitations of the system. User pitfalls include the inappropriate application of LI-RADS to a low-risk patient population, incorrect measurement techniques, inaccurate assumptions about LI-RADS requirements, and improper usage of LI-RADS terminology and categories. System pitfalls include areas of discordance with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as well as pitfalls related to rare ancillary features. This article reviews common user pitfalls in applying LI-RADS v2018 and how to avoid preventable errors and also highlights deficiencies of the current version of LI-RADS and how it might be improved in the future. Level of Evidence:3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1673-1686.

Utility of Stack-of-stars Acquisition for Hepatobiliary Phase Imaging without Breath-holding

Purpose:

Post-contrast liver magnetic resonance imaging is typically performed with breath-hold 3D gradient echo sequences. However, breath-holding for >10 s is difficult for some patients. In this study, we compared the quality of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) imaging without breath-holding using the prototype pulse sequences stack-of-stars liver acquisition with volume acceleration (LAVA) (LAVA Star) with or without navigator echoes (LAVA Star_navi+ and LAVA Star_navi−) and Cartesian LAVA with navigator echoes (Cartesian LAVA_navi+).

Methods:

Seventy-two patients were included in this single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. HBP imaging using the three LAVA sequences (Cartesian LAVA_navi+, LAVA Star_navi−, and LAVA Star_navi+) without breath-holding was performed for all patients using a 3T magnetic resonance system. Two independent radiologists qualitatively analyzed (overall image quality, liver edge sharpness, hepatic vein clarity, streak artifacts, and respiratory motion/pulsation artifacts) HBP images taken by the three sequences using a five-point scale. Quantitative evaluations were also performed by calculating the liver-to-spleen, -lesion, and -portal vein (PV) signal intensity ratios. The results were compared between the three sequences using the Friedman test.

Results:

LAVA Star_navi+ showed the best image quality and hepatic vein clarity (P < 0.0001). LAVA Star_navi− showed the lowest image quality (P < 0.0001–0.0106). LAVA Star_navi+ images showed fewer streak artifacts than LAVA Star_navi− images (P < 0.0001), while Cartesian LAVA_navi+ images showed no streak artifacts. Cartesian LAVA_navi+ images showed stronger respiratory motion/pulsation artifacts than the others (P < 0.0001). LAVA Star_navi− images showed the highest liver-to-spleen ratios (P < 0.0001–0.0005). Cartesian LAVA_navi+ images showed the lowest liver-to-lesion and -PV ratios (P < 0.0001–0.0108).

Conclusion:

In terms of image quality, the combination of stack-of-stars acquisition and navigator echoes is the best for HBP imaging without breath-holding.

Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Value of Washout in Transitional and Hepatobiliary Phases

Background Current Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System guidelines define the washout appearance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI only during the portal venous phase. Defining washout only during the portal venous phase may lead to lower sensitivity for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Purpose To compare the diagnostic performances of three gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI criteria for HCC according to the phases during which washout appearance was determined. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, patients with a hepatic nodule detected at US surveillance for HCC from January to December 2012 underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Three diagnostic MRI criteria for HCC were defined according to the phases during which washout appearance was observed, with the presence of arterial phase hyperenhancement and hypointensity noted (a) only during the portal venous phase, with washout confined to the portal venous phase; (b) during the portal venous phase or transitional phase, with washout extended to the transitional phase; or (c) during the portal venous, transitional, or hepatobiliary phase, with washout extended to the hepatobiliary phase. If a nodule showed marked T2 hyperintensity or a targetoid appearance, it was precluded from the diagnosis of HCC. The sensitivity and specificity were compared by using a generalized estimating equation. Results A total of 178 patients were included (mean age ± standard deviation, 55.3 years ± 9.1) with 203 surgically confirmed hepatic nodules (186 HCCs and 17 non-HCCs) measuring 3.0 cm or smaller. The sensitivity with washout extended to the hepatobiliary phase (95.2% [177 of 186]) was better than that with washout extended to the transitional phase (90.9% [169 of 186]; P = .01) and washout confined to the portal venous phase (75.3% [140 of 186]; P < .01). The specificity with extensions of washout to the transitional phase and hepatobiliary phase (82% [14 of 17] for both) was similar to that obtained with washout confined to the portal venous phase (94.1% [16 of 17]) (P = .47). Conclusion After exclusion of typical hemangiomas and nodules with a targetoid appearance, extending washout appearance to the transitional or hepatobiliary phase (instead of restricting it to the portal venous phase) allowed higher sensitivity without a reduction in specificity. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Fowler and Sirlin in this issue.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Imaging Modalities for Diagnosis and Prognosis

As opposed to most solid cancers, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) does not necessarily require histological confirmation. Noninvasive diagnosis is possible and relies on imaging. In cirrhotic patients, the diagnosis can be obtained in tumors displaying typical features that include non-rim arterial phase hyperenhancement followed by washout during the portal venous and/or delayed phases on CT or MR imaging. This pattern is very specific and, as such, has been endorsed by both Western and Asian diagnostic guidelines and systems. However, its sensitivity is not very high, especially for small lesions. Numerous ancillary features favoring the diagnosis of HCC may be depicted, including appearance after injection of hepatobiliary MR imaging contrast agents. These features increase confidence in diagnosis, but cannot be used as substitutes to liver biopsy. Aside from its diagnostic purpose, imaging also helps to assess tumor biology and patient outcome, by identifying features of local invasiveness. The purpose of this review article is to offer an overview of the role of imaging for the diagnosis and prognostication of HCC.

Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update

The goal of this review is to present the similarities and differences among the latest guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) of Korea. In 2018, major guideline updates have been proposed by the AASLD, EASL and KLCA-NCC; AASLD newly incorporated LI-RADS into their HCC diagnostic algorithm. The AASLD and EASL guidelines now include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using hepatobiliary contrast media as a first-line diagnostic test in addition to dynamic computed tomography and MRI using extracellular contrast media and the KLCA-NCC and EASL guidelines also include contrast-enhanced ultrasound as a second-line diagnostic test. We will comprehensively review the HCC surveillance and diagnostic algorithms and compare and highlight key features for each guideline. We also address limitations of current systems for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC.

Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Hepatocellular carcinoma and mimickers

Gadoxetic acid, a hepatocyte-specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent, has emerged as an important tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is useful for the evaluation of early-stage HCC, diagnosis of HCC precursor lesions, and highly sensitive diagnosis of HCC. Furthermore, functional information provided by gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI can aid in the characterization of focal liver lesions. For example, whereas lesions lack functioning hepatocytes appear hypointense in the hepatobiliary phase, preserved or enhanced expression of organic anion transporting polypeptides in some HCCs as well as focal nodular hyperplasia lead to hyperintensity in the hepatobiliary phase; and a targetoid appearance on transitional phase or hepatobiliary phase imaging can be helpful for identifying the histopathological composition of tumors. While gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI may improve the sensitivity of HCC diagnosis and provide new insights into the characterization of focal liver lesions, there are many challenges associated with its use. This article reviews the pros and cons of HCC diagnosis with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and discuss some clues in the radiological differentiation of HCC from HCC mimickers.