Does a combined CT and MRI protocol enhance the diagnostic efficacy of LI-RADS in the categorization of hepatic observations? A prospective comparative study

Tumor Seeding With Needle Biopsy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Biopsy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may help with selecting appropriate chemotherapy with inconclusive imaging; concern about potential seeding may limit its use.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to assess the risk of tumor seeding with biopsy of HCC excluding nonliver cancers or seeding after interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 2,339 unique abstracts were identified; 37 studies were included in the final analysis. The rate of tumor seeding was 0.62% (range 0%-7.77%) in 13,959 biopsies performed. The average reported median lengths of follow-up was 35.8 months (range 10.5-60 months).

DISCUSSION

Overall, the risk of tumor seeding with biopsy of HCC is low.

The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the radiological classification of liver observations identified by CT and MRI

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Timely and accurate diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is essential for improving patient outcomes and guiding treatment. This multicenter study aimed to optimize the diagnostic workflow for HCC through a step-wise combination of CT/MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective analysis of prospectively recruited high-risk HCC participants with liver observations from 4 institutions, between January 2017 and December 2021. These participants initially underwent CT/MRI followed by CEUS, with observations categorized according to CT/MRI/CEUS LI-RADS. Three step-wise diagnostic strategies were evaluated, starting with CT/MRI and followed by CEUS, and compared to CT/MRI LI-RADS alone. Performance metrics included AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, using pathology or over one year of follow-up as standards. The impact on clinical decisions was measured by false-negative, false-positive, and biopsy rates.

RESULTS

Of 1264 participants, 874 (69%) were confirmed as HCC. The step-wise strategies outperformed CT/MRI LI-RADS. Strategy-3, which involved subsequent CEUS for CT/MRI LR-3/4 observations, significantly improved sensitivity (88.8% vs. 79.9%, P < 0.001) while maintaining comparable specificity (88.2% vs. 91.3%, P > 0.05). Strategy-3 reduced biopsy rate (31.5-22.4%, P = 0.028) and decreased false-negative rate (20.1-11.2%, P < 0.001). Additionally, 96% (55/57) of CT/MRI LR-3 and 97% (77/79) of CT/MRI LR-4 observations were accurately diagnosed and treated as HCC, with 61% (74/121) of CT/MRI LR-4 observations avoiding biopsy with CEUS-assisted.

CONCLUSION

A step-wise approach using CT/MRI followed by CEUS for LR-3/4 observations improved the diagnostic performance and further refined clinical decision-making in HCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR-DDD-16010089.

Common pitfalls and diagnostic challenges in the application of LI-RADS CT/MRI algorithms: a comprehensive review

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was developed to standardize the interpretation and reporting of liver observations in at-risk populations, aiding in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite its advantages, the application of LI-RADS can be challenging due to the complexity of liver pathology and imaging interpretation. This comprehensive review highlights common pitfalls encountered in LI-RADS application and offers practical strategies to enhance diagnostic accuracy and consistency among radiologists. Key areas of difficulty include misapplication in non-high-risk populations, misinterpretation of major imaging features such as arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout, and incorrect application of ancillary features. Additionally, the review addresses challenges related to atypical HCC presentations and HCC mimics. By recognizing and addressing these pitfalls, radiologists can improve diagnostic accuracy and avoid common mistakes in the diagnosis of HCC.

Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) category 5 has high specificity and modest sensitivity for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 vs combined LR-4 and LR-5 (LR-4/5) for HCC diagnosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 03, 2023 were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 and combined LR-4/5 for HCC diagnosis, using CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2014, 2017, or 2018. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation diagnostic performance. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies (15,108 observations, 9928 (65.7%) HCCs) were included. Compared to LR-5, combined LR-4/5 showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (83.0% (95% CI [80.3-85.8%]) vs 65.7% (95% CI [62.4-69.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled specificity (75.0% (95% CI [70.5-79.6%]) vs 91.7% (95% CI [90.2-93.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled positive likelihood ratio (3.60 (95% CI [3.06-4.23]) vs 6.18 (95% CI [5.35-7.14]); p < 0.001), and lower pooled negative likelihood ratio (0.22 (95% CI [0.19-0.25]) vs 0.38 (95% CI [0.35-0.41]) vs; p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that combining LR-4 and LR-5 would increase sensitivity but decrease specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. These findings may inform management guidelines and individualized management.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This meta-analysis estimated the magnitude of changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria when LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 were combined; these findings can inform management guidelines and individualized management.

KEY POINTS

There is no single worldwide reporting system for liver imaging, partly due to regional needs. Combining LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 increased sensitivity and decreased specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria can inform management guidelines and individualized management.

Imaging of Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Evidence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Early detection of HCC is a key factor in enabling curative therapies and improving overall survival. Worldwide, several guidelines are available for surveillance of at-risk populations and diagnosis of HCC. This article provides a current comprehensive update on screening and diagnosis of HCC.

LI-RADS v2018 category and imaging features: inter-modality agreement between contrast-enhanced CT, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI, and extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI

PURPOSE

To perform an intra-individual comparison of LI-RADS category and imaging features in patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on contrast-enhanced CT, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI), and extracellular agent-enhanced MRI (ECA-MRI) and to analyze the diagnostic performance of each imaging modality.

METHOD

This retrospective study included cirrhotic patients with at least one LR-3, LR-4, LR-5, LR-M or LR-TIV observation imaged with at least two imaging modalities among CT, EOB-MRI, or ECA-MRI. Two radiologists evaluated the observations using the LI-RADS v2018 diagnostic algorithm. Reference standard included pathologic confirmation and imaging criteria according to LI-RADS v2018. Imaging features were compared between different exams using the McNemar test. Inter-modality agreement was calculated by using the weighted Cohen's kappa (k) test.

RESULTS

A total of 144 observations (mean size 34.0 ± 32.4 mm) in 96 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the detection of major and ancillary imaging features between the three imaging modalities. When considering all the observations, inter-modality agreement for category assignment was substantial between CT and EOB-MRI (k 0.60; 95%CI 0.44, 0.75), moderate between CT and ECA-MRI (k 0.46; 95%CI 0.22, 0.69) and substantial between EOB-MRI and ECA-MRI (k 0.72; 95%CI 0.59, 0.85). In observations smaller than 20 mm, inter-modality agreement was fair between CT and EOB-MRI (k 0.26; 95%CI 0.05, 0.47), moderate between CT and ECA-MRI (k 0.42; 95%CI -0.02, 0.88), and substantial between EOB-MRI and ECA-MRI (k 0.65; 95%CI 0.47, 0.82). ECA-MRI demonstrated the highest sensitivity (70%) and specificity (100%) when considering LR-5 as predictor of HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-modality agreement between CT, ECA-MRI, and EOB-MRI decreases in observations smaller than 20 mm. ECA-MRI has the provided higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC.

Up-to-Date Role of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

This article overviews Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), a system that standardizes techniques, interpretation and reporting of imaging studies done for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance, diagnosis, and locoregional treatment response assessment. LI-RADS includes 4 algorithms, each of which defines ordinal categories reflecting probability of the assessed outcome. The categories, in turn, guide patient management. The LI-RADS diagnostic algorithms provide diagnostic criteria for the entire spectrum of lesions found in at-risk patients. In addition, the use of LI-RADS in clinical care improves clarity of communication between radiologists and clinicians and may improve the performance of inexperienced users to the levels of expert liver imagers.

Early detection of hypervascularization in hepatocellular carcinoma (≤2 cm) on hepatic arterial phase with virtual monochromatic imaging: Comparison with low-tube voltage CT

This study aims to assess the diagnostic value of virtual monochromatic image (VMI) at low keV energy for early detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in hepatic arterial phase compared with low-tube voltage (80 kVp) CT generated from dual-energy CT (DE-CT). A total of 107 patients with 114 hypervascular HCCs (≤2 cm) underwent DE-CT, 140 kVp, blended 120 kVp, and 80 kVp images were generated, as well as 40 and 50 keV. CT numbers of HCCs and the standard deviation as image noise on psoas muscle were measured. The contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) of HCC were compared among all techniques. Overall image quality and sensitivity for detecting HCC hypervascularity were qualitatively assessed by three readers. The mean CT numbers, CNR, and image noise were highest at 40 keV followed by 50 keV, 80 kVp, blended 120 kVp, and 140 kVp. Significant differences were found in all evaluating endpoints except for mean image noise of 50 keV and 80 kVp. Image quality of 40 keV was the lowest, but still it was considered acceptable for diagnostic purposes. The mean sensitivity for detecting lesion hypervascularity with 40 keV (92%) and 50 keV (84%) was higher than those with 80 kVp (56%). Low keV energy images were superior to 80 kVp in detecting hypervascularization of early HCC.

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.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: State of the art diagnostic imaging

Primary liver cancer is the fourth most common malignancy worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprising up to 90% of cases. Imaging is a staple for surveillance and diagnostic criteria for HCC in current guidelines. Because early diagnosis can impact treatment approaches, utilizing new imaging methods and protocols to aid in differentiation and tumor grading provides a unique opportunity to drastically impact patient prognosis. Within this review manuscript, we provide an overview of imaging modalities used to screen and evaluate HCC. We also briefly discuss emerging uses of new imaging techniques that offer the potential for improving current paradigms for HCC characterization, management, and treatment monitoring.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Percentages of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in LI-RADS Categories with CT and MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) CT and MRI algorithm applies equally to CT, MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI), and MRI with gadoxetate (Gx-MRI). Purpose To estimate pooled percentages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and overall malignancy for each LI-RADS category with CT and MRI. Materials and Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for research articles (January 2014-April 2021) reporting the percentages of observations in each LI-RADS category with use of versions 2014, 2017, or 2018. Study design, population characteristics, imaging modality, reference standard, and numbers of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in each category were recorded. A random-effects model evaluated the pooled percentage of HCC and overall malignancy for each category. Results There were 49 studies with 9620 patients and a total 11 562 observations, comprising 7921 HCCs, 1132 non-HCC malignancies, and 2509 benign entities. No HCC or non-HCC malignancies were reported with any modality in the LR-1 category. The pooled percentages of HCC for CT, ECA-MRI, and Gx-MRI, respectively, were 10%, 6%, and 1% for LR-2 (P = .16); 48%, 31%, and 38% for LR-3 (P = .42); 76%, 64%, and 77% for LR-4 (P = .62); 96%, 95%, and 96% for LR-5 (P = .76); 88%, 76%, and 78% for LR-5V or LR-TIV (tumor in vein) (P = .42); and 20%, 30%, and 35% for LR-M (P = .32). Most LR-M (93%-100%) and LR-5V or LR-TIV (99%-100%) observations were malignant, regardless of modality. Conclusion There was no difference in percentages of hepatocellular carcinoma and overall malignancy between CT, MRI with extracellular contrast agents, and MRI with gadoxetate for any Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System categories. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article See also the editorial by Ronot in this issue.

Clinical outcomes of patients with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 or Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 observations in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review

Patients with indeterminate liver nodules, classified as LR-3 and LR-4 observations per the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System, are at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but risk estimates remain imprecise. We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to December 2021 to identify cohort studies examining HCC incidence among patients with LR-3 or LR-4 observations on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Predictors of HCC were abstracted from each study, when available. Of 13 total studies, nine conducted LR-3 observation-level analyses, with the proportions of incident HCC ranging from 1.2% to 12.5% at 12 months and 4.2% to 44.4% during longer study follow-up. Among three studies with patient-level analyses, 8%-22.2% of patients with LR-3 lesions developed LR-4 observations and 11.1%-24.5% developed HCC. Among nine studies conducting LR-4 observation-level analyses, incident HCC ranged from 30.8% to 44.0% at 12 months and 30.9% to 71.0% during study follow-up; conversely, 6%-42% of observations were downgraded to LR-3 or lower. Patient-level factors associated with HCC included older age, male sex, higher alpha-fetoprotein levels, viral etiology, and prior history of HCC; observation-level factors included maximum diameter, threshold growth, T2 hyperintensity, and visibility on ultrasound. Studies were limited by small sample sizes, inclusion of patients with prior HCC, short follow-up duration, and failure to account for clustering of observations in patients or competing risks of transplantation and death. LR-3 and LR-4 observations have elevated but variable risks of HCC. Higher quality studies are necessary to identify high-risk patients who warrant close CT or MRI-based follow-up.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Identification of the origin of tumor in vein: comparison between CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and v2016 for patients at high risk

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of the Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Report and Data System (LI-RADS) v2016 and v2017 in identifying the origin of tumor in vein (TIV).

Methods

From April 2014 to December 2018, focal liver lesions (FLLs) accompanied by TIV formation in patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were enrolled. Histologic evaluation or composite imaging reference standard were served as the reference standard. Each case was categorized according to the CEUS LI-RADS v2016 and v2017, respectively. Diagnostic performance of CEUS LI-RADS v2016 and v2017 in identifying the originated tumor of TIV was validated via sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value.

Results

A total of 273 FLLs with TIV were analyzed finally, including 266 HCCs and 7 non-HCCs. In v2016, when adopting all TIV as LR-5V, the accuracy and PPV in identifying the originated tumor were both 97.4%. In v2017, when assigning TIV according to contiguous FLLs CEUS LI-RADS category, the accuracy and PPV were 61.9% and 99.4% in subclass of LR-5 as the diagnostic criteria of HCC, and 64.1% and 99.4% in subclass of LR-4/5 as the criteria of HCC diagnosis. There were significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between CEUS LI-RADS v2016 and v2017 in identifying the originated tumor of TIV (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

CEUS LI-RADS v2016 could be better than v2017 in identifying the originated tumor of TIV.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12880-022-00912-4.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Current Imaging Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Simple Summary

The role of imaging in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has significantly evolved and expanded beyond the plain radiological confirmation of the tumor based on the typical appearance in a multiphase contrast-enhanced CT or MRI examination. The introduction of hepatobiliary contrast agents has enabled the diagnosis of hepatocarcinogenesis at earlier stages, while the application of ultrasound contrast agents has drastically upgraded the role of ultrasound in the diagnostic algorithms. Newer quantitative techniques assessing blood perfusion on CT and MRI not only allow earlier diagnosis and confident differentiation from other lesions, but they also provide biomarkers for the evaluation of treatment response. As distinct HCC subtypes are identified, their correlation with specific imaging features holds great promise for estimating tumor aggressiveness and prognosis. This review presents the current role of imaging and underlines its critical role in the successful management of patients with HCC.

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer related death worldwide. Radiology has traditionally played a central role in HCC management, ranging from screening of high-risk patients to non-invasive diagnosis, as well as the evaluation of treatment response and post-treatment follow-up. From liver ultrasonography with or without contrast to dynamic multiple phased CT and dynamic MRI with diffusion protocols, great progress has been achieved in the last decade. Throughout the last few years, pathological, biological, genetic, and immune-chemical analyses have revealed several tumoral subtypes with diverse biological behavior, highlighting the need for the re-evaluation of established radiological methods. Considering these changes, novel methods that provide functional and quantitative parameters in addition to morphological information are increasingly incorporated into modern diagnostic protocols for HCC. In this way, differential diagnosis became even more challenging throughout the last few years. Use of liver specific contrast agents, as well as CT/MRI perfusion techniques, seem to not only allow earlier detection and more accurate characterization of HCC lesions, but also make it possible to predict response to treatment and survival. Nevertheless, several limitations and technical considerations still exist. This review will describe and discuss all these imaging modalities and their advances in the imaging of HCC lesions in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic livers. Sensitivity and specificity rates, method limitations, and technical considerations will be discussed.

Diagnostic performance of CT versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 (LR-5) for diagnosing HCC between CT and MRI using comparative studies.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to April 21, 2021, to identify studies that directly compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 for HCC between CT and MRI. A bivariate random-effects model was fitted to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 of each modality, and compare the pooled estimates of paired data. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the MRI contrast agent.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1145 observations (725 HCCs) were included in the final analysis. The pooled per-observation sensitivity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC was higher using MRI (61%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43-76%; I² = 95%) than CT (48%; 95% CI, 31-65%; I² = 97%) (p < 0.001). The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 did not show statistically significant difference between CT (96%; 95% CI, 92-98%; I² = 0%) and MRI (93%; 95% CI, 88-96%; I² = 16%) (p = 0.054). In the subgroup analysis, extracellular contrast agent-enhanced MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for diagnosing HCC (73% [95% CI, 55-85%] vs. 55% [95% CI, 39-70%]; p = 0.007), without a significant difference in specificity (93% [95% CI, 80-98%] vs. 94% [95% CI, 87-97%]; p = 0.884).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-5 of MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than CT for diagnosing HCC. The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 were comparable between the two modalities.

KEY POINTS

• The pooled sensitivity of LR-5 using MRI was higher than that using CT (61% versus 48%), but the pooled specificities of LR-5 were not significantly different between CT and MRI (96% versus 93%). • Subgroup analysis according to the MRI contrast media showed a significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity using ECA-enhanced MRI than with EOB-enhanced MRI (73% versus 55%), and comparable specificities (93% versus 94%). • Although LI-RADS provides a common diagnostic algorithm for CT or MRI, the per-observation performance of LR-5 can be affected by the imaging modality as well as the MRI contrast agent.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader reliability of the MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (version 2018) risk stratification and management system

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be diagnosed non-invasively, provided certain imaging criteria are met. However, the recent Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 has not been widely validated.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and reader reliability of the LI-RADS version 2018 lexicon amongst fellowship trained radiologists compared with an expert consensus reference standard.

Method

This retrospective study was conducted between 2018 and 2020. A total of 50 contrast enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies evaluating focal liver observations in patients with cirrhosis, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or prior HCC were acquired. The standard of reference was a consensus review by three fellowship-trained radiologists. Diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated per LI-RADS category for each reader. Kappa statistics were used to measure reader agreement.

Results

Readers demonstrated excellent specificities (88% – 100%) and NPVs (85% – 100%) across all LI-RADS categories. Sensitivities were variable, ranging from 67% to 83% for LI-RADS 1, 29% to 43% for LI-RADS 2, 100% for LI-RADS 3, 70% to 80% for LI-RADS 4 and 80% to 84% for LI-RADS 5. Readers showed excellent accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions with AUC values > 0.90. Overall inter-reader agreement was ‘good’ (kappa = 0.76, p < 0.001). Pairwise inter-reader agreement was ‘very good’ (kappa ≥ 0.90, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The LI-RADS version 2018 demonstrates excellent specificity, NPV and AUC values for risk stratification of liver observations by radiologists. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System can reliably differentiate benign from malignant lesions when used in conjunction with corresponding LI-RADS management recommendations.

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.

Differentiation of Small Hepatic Abscess From Hepatic Metastasis With a Combination of Imaging Parameters

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the combination imaging features to differentiate small (the lesion size of 3 cm or less) hepatic abscess from metastasis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with preexisting malignancy and small hepatic lesions who underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 4 days between March 2017 and July 2020. Two radiologists independently evaluated the imaging features of each focal hepatic lesion. Laboratory parameters were also recorded. Significant parameters differentiating hepatic abscess from hepatic metastasis were identified by univariate generalized estimating equation regression. We compared the diagnostic performances of laboratory parameters, imaging features, and their combinations.

RESULTS

We included 16 patients (10 males and 6 females) with 35 hepatic abscesses and 21 patients (13 males and 8 females) with 62 metastases with a mean age of 70.3 years in this study. Abnormal segmental neutrophil, pathy parenchymal enhancement on CT, and absence of dark rim on MRI were associated with hepatic abscess (all P < 0.01). The combination of CT and MRI parameters showed significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value than CT alone (P ≤ 0.031), without significant difference in sensitivity and negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that the combination of CT and MRI imaging features is helpful for the differentiation of small hepatic abscess from metastasis.

Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in a population at risk: iodine-enhanced multidetector CT and/or gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of iodine-enhanced multidetector CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 Tesla (T) MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma of patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multicentre cohort study.

SETTING

The Gong'an County People's Hospital, Gong'an County, China and the First People's Hospital of Jingzhou City, China.

PARTICIPANTS

Reports of CT, MRI and liver biopsies/histopathology data of a total of 815 patients who at risk were reviewed.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The lesions that possessed detection in the plain scan phase, enhanced arterial phase and/or enhanced portal phase of CT images and the lesions that possessed enhancements in the plain scan phase, enhanced arterial phase, enhanced portal phase and/or hepatobiliary phases of MRI were considered hepatocellular carcinoma. The decision of hepatocellular carcinoma was made based on the current Liver Imaging and Data Reporting System for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

True positive hepatocellular carcinoma (563 vs 521, p=0.0314), true negative hepatocellular carcinoma (122 vs 91, p=0.0275), false positive hepatocellular carcinoma (88 vs 123, p=0.0121), false negative hepatocellular carcinoma (42 vs 80, p=0.0005), specificity (58.10 vs 42.52, p=0.0478) and negative clinical utility (0.1 vs 0.073, p=0.0386) were superior for gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI than those of iodine-enhanced multidetector CT. Sensitivity and accuracy for gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI were 93.06% and 77.40 %, respectively, and those for iodine-enhanced multidetector CT were 86.69% and 75.09 %, respectively. Likelihood to detect hepatocellular carcinoma for gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI was 0-0.894 diagnostic confidence/lesion, and that for iodine-enhanced multidetector CT was 0-0.887 diagnostic confidence/lesion.

CONCLUSION

Gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI facilitates the confidence of initiation of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE

4.

What proportion of LI-RADS 5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LI-RADS 5 criteria?

OBJECTIVES

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) category 5 (definite hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) is assigned based on combinations of major imaging features (MFs): size, arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE), washout (WO), enhancing capsule, and threshold growth. The criteria were simplified in v2018 compared to v2017. The goal of this study is to assess the proportion of LR-5 observations reported in clinical practice with LI-RADS v2017 or v2018 that did not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported MFs.

METHODS

All MR and CT reports using a standardized LI-RADS template between April 2017 and September 2020 were identified retrospectively. For each reported LR-5 observation, size, MFs, and LI-RADS version (v2017 or v2018) were extracted. Reported MFs were used to determine whether LR-5 criteria were met using the applied version of LI-RADS. The data was summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Three hundred eight observations in 234 patients (67.6% male, mean age 66.2 years) were reported as LR-5, including 136 (44.2%) with v2017 and 172 (55.8%) with v2018. 8/136 (6%) v2017 LR-5 observations and 6/172 (3%) v2018 LR-5 observations did not meet LR-5 criteria. Of 8 incorrectly categorized v2017 observations, 3 (43%) lacked APHE, 1 (14%) was a 16-mm new observation with APHE only, and 4 (43%) were 10-19 mm with APHE and WO. Of the 6 incorrectly categorized v2018 observations, 5 (83%) lacked APHE and 1 (17%) was < 10 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on the LI-RADS version, 3-6% of LR-5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported MFs. Key Points • Depending on the LI-RADS version, 3-6% of LR-5 observations in clinical practice do not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported major imaging features. • Assigning LR-5 category to observations without nonrim arterial-phase hyperenhancement was the most common error.

Computed tomography 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 fourth in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, computed tomography (CT) 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-foetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma is, therefore, 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 CT may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CT 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 multidetector, multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, either in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Trials Register, Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Diagnostic-Test-Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until 4 May 2021. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT 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 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 21 studies, with a total of 3101 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 in the patient selection domain, we judged 14% (3/21) of studies to be at low concern and 86% (18/21) of studies to be at high concern owing to characteristics of the participants who were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation. CT for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 70.9% to 82.9%) and specificity 91.3% (95% CI 86.5% to 94.5%) (21 studies, 3101 participants; low-certainty evidence). CT for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 71.4% (95% CI 60.3% to 80.4%) and specificity 92.0% (95% CI 86.3% to 95.5%) (10 studies, 1854 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the three studies at low concern for applicability (861 participants), we found sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI 50.8% to 91.5%) and specificity 89.2% (95% CI 57.0% to 98.1%). 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

In the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, CT has roles as a confirmatory test for hepatocellular carcinoma lesions, and for staging assessment. We found that using CT in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22.5% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 8.7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 28.6% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 8% 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.

Combined computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging improves diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3.0 cm

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is important, but the diagnostic performance of combined computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 is not fully understood. We evaluated the clinical usefulness of combined CT and MRI for diagnosing HCC ≤ 3.0 cm using LI-RADS.

METHODS

In 222 patients at risk of HCC who underwent both contrast-enhanced dynamic CT and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI in 2017, 291 hepatic nodules ≤ 3.0 cm were retrospectively analyzed. Two radiologists performed image analysis and assigned a LI-RADS category to each nodule. The diagnostic performance for HCC was evaluated for CT, ordinary-MRI (washout confined to portal venous-phase), and modified-MRI (washout extended to hepatobiliary phase), and sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each modality. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the diagnostic performance for HCC between combined CT and ordinary-MRI, combined CT and modified-MRI, and CT or MRI alone. p < 0.0062 (0.05/8) was considered statistically significant following Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

In 291 nodules, the sensitivity and specificity of CT, ordinary-MRI, and modified-MRI were 70.2% and 92.8%, 72.6% and 96.4%, and 84.6% and 88.0%, respectively. Compared with CT or MRI alone, both combined CT and ordinary-MRI (sensitivity, 83.7%; specificity, 95.2%) and combined CT and modified-MRI (sensitivity, 88.9%; specificity, 89.2%) showed significantly higher sensitivity (p ≤ 0.006), without a significant decrease in specificity (p ≥ 0.314).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CT or MRI alone, combined CT and MRI can increase sensitivity for diagnosing HCC ≤ 3.0 cm, without a significant decrease in specificity.

Is There a Difference Between LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 Progression Assessment Using CT Versus MR? A Retrospective, Single-Center, Longitudinal Study of Patients Who Underwent 5082 Radiologic Examinations for Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Over a 43-Month Period

OBJECTIVE

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has been widely applied to CT and MR liver observations in patients at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated the impact of CT vs MR in upgrading LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 observations using a large cohort of high-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, longitudinal study of CT and MR radiographic reports (June 2013 - February 2017) with an assigned LI-RADS category. A final population of 757 individual scans and 212 high-risk patients had at least one LI-RADS 3 observation. Differences in observation time to progression between modalities were determined using uni- and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 212 patients with a LI-RADS 3 observation, 52 (25%) had progression to LI-RADS 5. Tp ranged from 64 - 818 days (median: 196 days). One hundred and three patients (49%) had MR and 109 patients (51%) had CT as their index study. Twenty-four patients with an MR index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during the follow-up interval, with progression rates of 22% (CI:13%-30%) at 1 year and 29% (CI:17%-40%) at 2 years. Twenty-eight patients with a CT index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during follow-up, with progression rates of 26% (CI:16%-35%) at 1 year and 31% (CI:19%-41%) at 2 years. Progression rates were not significantly different between patients whose LI-RADS 3 observation was initially diagnosed on MR vs CT (HR: 0.81, P = 0.44).

DISCUSSION

MR and CT modalities are comparable for demonstrating progression from LI-RADS 3 to 5 for high risk patients.

Increasing the sensitivity of LI-RADS v2018 for diagnosis of small (10-19 mm) HCC on extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether the LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 criteria can be modified to increase sensitivity without reducing specificity for diagnosing small (10-19 mm) HCC.

METHODS

167 consecutive high-risk patients with 174 small observations reported clinically on extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI from 2014 to 2018 were retrospectively studied. The best available reference standard was applied for each observation. Blinded to the reference standard, two radiologists scored LI-RADS imaging features retrospectively and assigned each observation a LI-RADS category using LI-RADS v2018 and each of four modified LI-RADS versions (mLI-RADS I to IV) with successively more expansive LR-5 criteria. Per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for small HCC using each version were assessed. Each modified version was compared to v2018 (McNemar test).

RESULTS

The 174 observations included 135 HCC, 8 non-HCC malignancies, and 31 benign entities. Using LI-RADS v2018, LR-5 provided 70% (both readers) sensitivity and 95% (both readers) specificity for small HCC. Expanding the LR-5 criteria to include nonrim APHE plus at least one additional major feature (mLI-RADS I) or no APHE plus at least two additional major features (mLI-RADS II) significantly increased sensitivity (reader 1/reader 2: 75%/75% vs. 70%, p = 0.016/0.031; 78%/79% vs. 70%, p = 0.001/0.001) without significantly reducing specificity (reader 1/reader 2: 90%/92% vs. 95%, p = 0.500/1.000 for both). mLI-RADS III and IV further increased sensitivity (reader 1/reader 2: 80%/81% vs. 70%, p < 0.001/< 0.001; 94%/92% vs. 70, p < 0.001/< 0.001) but with trend-level (reader 1/reader 2: 85%/80% vs. 95%, p = 0.125/0.063) or significant (reader 1/reader 2: 64%/62% vs. 95%, p < 0.001/< 0.001) specificity reductions.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanding the v2018 LR-5 criteria to include nonrim APHE plus at least one additional major feature or no APHE plus at least two additional major features significantly increases sensitivity without significantly reducing specificity for small HCC. Confirmation is warranted in multi-center prospective studies.

Inter-reader reliability of CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System according to imaging analysis methodology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To establish inter-reader reliability of CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and explore factors that affect it.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2020 to identify original articles reporting the inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS. The imaging analysis methodology of each study was identified, and pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or kappa values (κ) were calculated for lesion size, major features (arterial-phase hyperenhancement [APHE], nonperipheral washout [WO], and enhancing capsule [EC]), and LI-RADS categorization (LR) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses of pooled κ were performed for the number of readers, average reader experience, differences in reader experience, and LI-RADS version.

RESULTS

In the 12 included studies, the pooled ICC or κ of lesion size, APHE, WO, EC, and LR were 0.99 (0.96-1.00), 0.69 (0.58-0.81), 0.67 (0.53-0.82), 0.65 (0.54-0.76), and 0.70 (0.59-0.82), respectively. The experience and number of readers varied: studies using readers with ≥ 10 years of experience showed significantly higher κ for LR (0.82 vs. 0.45, p = 0.01) than those with < 10 years of reader experience. Studies with multiple readers including inexperienced readers showed significantly lower κ for APHE (0.55 vs. 0.76, p = 0.04) and LR (0.45 vs. 0.79, p = 0.02) than those with all experienced readers.

CONCLUSIONS

CT LI-RADS showed substantial inter-reader reliability for major features and LR. Inter-reader reliability differed significantly according to average reader experience and differences in reader experience. Reported results for inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS should be understood with consideration of the imaging analysis methodology.

KEY POINTS

• The CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) provides substantial inter-reader reliability for three major features and category assignment. • The imaging analysis methodology varied across studies. • The inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS differed significantly according to the average reader experience and the difference in reader experience.

Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing liver imaging in patients at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS category 5 (LR5) for diagnosing HCC and LI-RADS category M (LRM) for characterizing other non-HCC malignancies (OM) using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Multiple databases were searched for articles evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS and/or CT/MRI LI-RADS. A random-effects model was adopted to synthesize the summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of LR5 for diagnosing HCC and LRM for characterizing OM using CEUS and CT/MRI. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS LR5 for the diagnosis of HCC were 69% and 93%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 67% and the specificity, 93% of CT/MRI LR5 for HCC diagnosis. There was no significant difference between the overall diagnostic accuracy for HCC diagnosis of CEUS LR5 and that of CT/MRI LR5 in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (p = 0.55). The sensitivity was 84% with a specificity of 90% in the CEUS LRM for characterizing OM, while the sensitivity and specificity of CT/MRI LRM for characterizing OM was 63% and 95%. The DOR of CEUS LRM for characterizing OM was higher than that of CT/MRI LRM without significant difference (50.59 vs. 36.06, p = 0.34). This meta-analysis indicated that CEUS LI-RADS is qualified to characterize HCC and OM and may provide complementary information on liver nodules to CT/MRI LI-RADS.

Evaluation of LI-RADS 3 category by magnetic resonance in US-detected nodules ≤ 2 cm in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVES

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis in high-risk patients is a dynamic system, which was lastly updated in 2018. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy for HCC diagnosis of LI-RADS v2018 with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with extracellular contrast for solitary nodules ≤ 20 mm detected during ultrasound (US) surveillance in cirrhotic patients, with particular interest in those observations categorized as LI-RADS 3.

METHODS

Between November 2003 and February 2017, we included 262 consecutive cirrhotic patients with a newly US-detected solitary ≤ 20-mm nodule. A LI-RADS (LR) v2018 category was retrospectively assigned. The diagnostic accuracy for each LR category was described, and the main MRI findings associated with HCC diagnosis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Final diagnoses were as follows: 197 HCC (75.2%), 5 cholangiocarcinoma (1.9%), 2 metastasis (0.8%), and 58 benign lesions (22.1%); 0/15 (0%) LR-1, 6/26 (23.1%) LR-2, 51/74 (68.9%) LR-3, 11/12 (91.7%) LR-4, 126/127 (99.2%) LR-5, and 3/8 (37.5%) LR-M were HCC. LR-5 category displayed a sensitivity and specificity of 64% (95% CI, 56.8-70.7) and 98.5% (95% CI, 91.7-100), respectively. Considering also LR-4 as diagnostic for HCC, the sensitivity slightly increased to 69.5% (95% CI, 62.6-75.9) with minor impact on specificity (96.2%; 95% CI, 89.3-99.6). Regarding LR-3 observations, 51 out of 74 were HCC, 2 were non-HCC malignancies, and 20 out of 21 LR-3 nodules > 15 mm (95.2%) were finally categorized as HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

The high probability of HCC in US-detected LR-3 observations (68.9%) justifies triggering an active diagnostic work-up if intended to diagnose HCC at a very early stage.

KEY POINTS

• In cirrhotic patients with nodules ≤ 20 mm detected during US surveillance, 51 out of 74 (68.9%) of LR-3 nodules by MRI corresponded to an HCC. • In LR-3 nodules, HCC diagnosis was closely related to baseline tumor size. All 5 nodules smaller than 1 cm were diagnosed as benign. Oppositely, 20 out of 21 LR-3 observations > 15 mm (95.2%) were diagnosed as HCC. • The high probability of HCC in US-detected LR-3 observations justifies triggering an active diagnostic work-up if intended to diagnose HCC at a very early stage.

Diagnostic performance of LI-RADS for MRI and CT detection of HCC: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category ≥ 3 (LI-RADS 3-5v) for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHOD

A systematic PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science electronic database search was performed for original diagnostic studies published through July 31, 2018. Statistical analysis included data pooling, forest plot construction, heterogeneity testing, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (v2011, v2014 and v2017) involving 3386 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS ≥ 3 for diagnosing HCC were 0.86 (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.91) and 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.78-0.90), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.92 (95 % CI: 0.89-0.94). Meta-regression analysis showed that the publication year, blinding to the reference standard and the number of readers were significant factors affecting heterogeneity. In subgroup analyses, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.82 vs. 0.73) and comparable specificity (0.79 vs. 0.78) than computed tomography (CT). For HCCs ≤30 mm, LI-RADS showed lower sensitivity of 0.72 and specificity of 0.80 compared with HCC of all sizes. LR-5 showed higher sensitivity and specificity than LR-3 (sensitivity: 0.67 vs. 0.07, P = 0.02; specificity: 0.93 vs. 0.75, p < 0.001) and higher sensitivity than LR-4 (sensitivity: 0.67 vs. 0.29, P = 0.02; specificity: 0.93 vs. 0.80, p = 0.75). LR ≥ 5 had higher specificity at the cost of decreased sensitivity than LR ≥ 3 (specificity: 0.94 vs. 0.68, p < 0.001; sensitivity: 0.66 vs. 0.74, P = 0.70) and LR ≥ 4 (specificity: 0.94 vs. 0.84, p < 0.001; sensitivity: 0.66 vs. 0.74, P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

LI-RADS ≥ 3 shows high diagnostic accuracy for HCCs, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.85. The specificity is higher for LR-5 and LR ≥ 5. However, further prospective studies on LI-RADS ≥ 3 are needed to elucidate its value for diagnosing small HCCs (≤20 mm).

In vivo quantification of mandibular bone remodeling and vascular changes in a Wistar rat model: A novel HR-MRI and micro-CT fusion technique

Purpose

This study was performed to introduce an in vivo hybrid multimodality technique involving the coregistration of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (HR-MRI) to concomitantly visualize and quantify mineralization and vascularization at follow-up in a rat model.

Materials and Methods

Three adult female rats were randomly assigned as test subjects, with 1 rat serving as a control subject. For 20 weeks, the test rats received a weekly intravenous injection of 30 µg/kg zoledronic acid, and the control rat was administered a similar dose of normal saline. Bilateral extraction of the lower first and second molars was performed after 10 weeks. All rats were scanned once every 4 weeks with both micro-CT and HR-MRI. Micro-CT and HR-MRI images were registered and fused in the same 3-dimensional region to quantify blood flow velocity and trabecular bone thickness at T0 (baseline), T4 (4 weeks), T8 (8 weeks), T12 (12 weeks), T16 (16 weeks), and T20 (20 weeks). Histological assessment was the gold standard with which the findings were compared.

Results

The histomorphometric images at T20 aligned with the HR-MRI findings, with both test and control rats demonstrating reduced trabecular bone vasculature and blood vessel density. The micro-CT findings were also consistent with the histomorphometric changes, which revealed that the test rats had thicker trabecular bone and smaller marrow spaces than the control rat.

Conclusion

The combination of micro-CT and HR-MRI may be considered a powerful non-invasive novel technique for the longitudinal quantification of localized mineralization and vascularization.

Interreader Agreement of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System on MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is increasing, but the reported results for interreader agreement seem quite variable.

PURPOSE

To systematically determine the interreader agreement of LI-RADS on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to determine the sources of heterogeneity between the reported results.

STUDY TYPE

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SUBJECTS

Fifteen original articles with 2968 lesions.

FIELD STRENGTH

1.5T and 3.0T.

ASSESSMENT

Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction. The reviewers identified and reviewed the original articles reporting the interreader agreement of LI-RADS using MRI.

STATISTICAL TESTS

The meta-analytic pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for lesion size and kappa value (κ) for major features (arterial-phase hyperenhancement [APHE], nonperipheral washout [WO], enhancing capsule [EC]) and LI-RADS categorization (LR) were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed to explore the cause of study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The meta-analytic pooled ICC of lesion size was 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.00). Meta-analytic pooled κ of APHE, WO, EC, and LR were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.82), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.78), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58-0.74), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56-0.85), respectively. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted in all five variables (I2  ≥ 89.1%, P < 0.001). Study design, type, and clarity of blinding review were factors that significantly influenced study heterogeneity (P ≤ 0.05).

DATA CONCLUSION

LI-RADS demonstrated overall substantial interreader agreement for major features and the category on MRI, but showed heterogeneous results between studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:795-804.

Deep learning assisted differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from focal liver lesions: choice of four-phase and three-phase CT imaging protocol

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether a three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT protocol, when combined with a deep learning model, has similar accuracy in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from other focal liver lesions (FLLs) compared with a four-phase protocol.

METHODS

Three hundred and forty-two patients (mean age 49.1 ± 10.5 years, range 19-86 years, 65.8% male) scanned with a four-phase CT protocol (precontrast, arterial, portal-venous and delayed phases) were retrospectively enrolled. A total of 449 FLLs were categorized into HCC and non-HCC groups based on the best available reference standard. Three convolutional dense networks (CDNs) with the input of four-phase CT images (model A), three-phase images without portal-venous phase (model B) and three-phase images without precontrast phase (model C) were trained on 80% of lesions and evaluated in the other 20% by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and confusion matrix analysis. The DeLong test was performed to compare the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) of A with B, B with C, and A with C.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy in differentiating HCC from other FLLs on test sets was 83.3% for model A, 81.1% for model B and 85.6% for model C, and the AUCs were 0.925, 0.862 and 0.920, respectively. The AUCs of models A and C did not differ significantly (p = 0.765), but the AUCs of models A and B (p = 0.038) and of models B and C (p = 0.028) did.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with a CDN, a three-phase CT protocol without precontrast showed similar diagnostic accuracy as a four-phase protocol in differentiating HCC from other FLLs, suggesting that the multiphase CT protocol for HCC diagnosis might be optimized by removing the precontrast phase to reduce radiation dose.

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.

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.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018: Review of the CT/MRI Diagnostic Categories

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system that provides standardization in the interpretation and reporting of observations in patients at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) LI-RADS v2018 includes 8 diagnostic categories, which reflect the probability of benignity, malignancy in general, or HCC specifically. This article reviews the diagnostic categories of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018, highlighting the key imaging features, diagnostic criteria, and management implications.

Use of Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced Liver MRI and Mortality in More than 30 000 Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Nationwide Analysis

Background The impact on survival of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in addition to multiphase contrast material-enhanced CT for initial staging in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unknown. Purpose To compare all-cause mortality in patients with HCC who underwent CT only, CT plus non-gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, or CT plus gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI as part of their initial diagnostic work-up. Materials and Methods The authors performed a nationwide retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with HCC in South Korea between January 2008 and December 2010. Follow-up extended through December 2014. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression model with adjustment of confounding factors was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality. Results Among 30 023 patients with HCC (mean age ± standard deviation, 58.5 years ± 10.7, 23 978 men), the proportions of patients in whom HCC was diagnosed using CT only, CT plus non-gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, and CT plus gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI were 56.1%, 12.9%, and 31.0%, respectively. In adjusted analysis using CT only as the reference category, the HR for mortality for CT plus gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 0.67; P < .001), and the HR for CT plus non-gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.75; P < .001). Use of CT plus gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was associated with lower mortality compared with CT plus non-gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.95; P < .001), but this survival advantage was restricted to patients with localized disease. Conclusion In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, additional use of contrast-enhanced MRI was associated with lower mortality. Furthermore, CT plus gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was associated with better survival than CT plus non-gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI but only in patients with localized disease. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kim in this issue.

Validation of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response Criteria After Thermal Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumors can be successfully eradicated with thermal ablation (TA). We assessed the validity of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response (LR-TR) criteria with a retrospective analysis of a single-center database of patients with small HCC tumors (<3 cm in diameter) who underwent both laparoscopic TA and liver transplantation (LT) from 2004 to 2018. Postablation MRIs were assigned LR-TR categories (nonviable, equivocal, and viable) for ablated lesions and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) categories (probable or definite HCC) for untreated lesions. Interpretations were compared with the histopathology of the post-LT explanted liver. There were 45 patients with 81 tumors (59 ablated and 22 untreated; mean size, 2.2 cm), and 23 (39%) of the ablated tumors had viable HCC on histopathology. The sensitivity/specificity of LR-TR categories (nonviable/equivocal versus viable) of ablated tumors was 30%/99%, with a positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 93%/69%. The sensitivity varied with residual tumor size. The sensitivity/specificity of LI-RADS 4 and 5 diagnostic criteria at detecting new HCC was 65%/94%, respectively, with a PPV/NPV of 85%/84%. The interrater reliability (IRR) was high for LR-TR categories (90% agreement, Cohen's ĸ = 0.75) and for LI-RADS LR-4 and LR-5 diagnostic categories (91% agreement, Cohen's ĸ = 0.80). In patients with HCC <3 cm in diameter, LR-TR criteria after TA had high IRR but low sensitivity, suggesting that the LR-TR categories are precise but inaccurate. The low sensitivity may be secondary to TA's disruption in the local blood flow of the tissue, which could affect the arterial enhancement phase on MRI. Additional investigation and new technologies may be necessary to improve imaging after ablation.

Abbreviated MRI with optional multiphasic CT as an alternative to full-sequence MRI: LI-RADS validation in a HCC-screening cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI (AMRI) combined with multiphasic CT (mCT) with that of full-sequence gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) in a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-screening cohort METHODS: Consecutive patients at risk of HCC who underwent EOB-MRI and mCT within 3 months for evaluation of new 0.5-3-cm hepatic observations were retrospectively recruited from 3 centers. An AMRI protocol comprising hepatobiliary phase, T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging, and dual-echo sequence was reconstituted from EOB-MRI. Two radiologists independently reviewed each observation in AMRI plus mCT (set 1) and EOB-MRI (set 2) per LI-RADS v2018. Per-lesion sensitivity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) for HCC were calculated and compared between image sets.

RESULTS

In 267 patients, 306 histologically confirmed observations (280 HCCs, 20 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas, 1 cholangiocarcinoma, and 5 benignities) were assessed. Set 1 yielded higher sensitivity (96.4% vs. 92.9%, p = 0.013) and comparable accuracy (91.2% vs. 87.6%) and PPV (94.1% vs. 93.5%) to set 2 using LI-RADS category (LR)-4/5 criteria. The sets showed comparable sensitivity (66.4% vs. 70.4%), accuracy (67.7% vs. 70.6%), and PPV (97.4% vs. 96.6%) using LR-5 criteria. A similar substantial number of non-HCC malignancies were categorized as LR-4 or LR-5, as was the number of HCCs categorized as LR-M in both sets.

CONCLUSIONS

AMRI combined with mCT showed diagnostic performance similar or superior to that of EOB-MRI for HCC diagnosis using LI-RADS. Therefore, mCT holds potential as a sequential examination for HCC diagnosis in AMRI-detected hepatic observation in patients at risk of HCC.

KEY POINTS

• AMRI plus multiphasic CT showed comparable accuracy (91.2%) and PPV (94.1%) to full-sequence gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI using LR-4/5 criteria. • AMRI plus multiphasic CT was significantly more sensitive than full-sequence gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (96.4% vs. 92.9%) using LR-4/5 criteria. • Multiphasic CT is a potential sequential modality for HCC diagnosis after AMRI.

Man or machine? Prospective comparison of the version 2018 EASL, LI-RADS criteria and a radiomics model to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria are widely used for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Radiomics allows further quantitative tumor heterogeneity profiling. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracies of the version 2018 (v2018) EASL, LI-RADS criteria and radiomics models for HCC in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Ethical approval by the institutional review board and informed consent were obtained for this study. From July 2015 to September 2018, consecutive high-risk patients were enrolled in our tertiary care hospital and underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and subsequent hepatic surgery. We constructed a multi-sequence-based three-dimensional whole-tumor radiomics signature by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator model and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The diagnostic accuracies of the radiomics signature was validated in an independent cohort and compared with the EASL and LI-RADS criteria reviewed by two independent radiologists.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine pathologically confirmed nodules (173 HCCs, mean size: 5.74 ± 3.17 cm) in 211 patients were included. Among them, 201 patients (95%) were infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV). The sensitivity and specificity were 73 and 71% for the radiomics signature, 91 and 71% for the EASL criteria, and 86 and 82% for the LI-RADS criteria, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the radiomics signature (0.810), LI-RADS (0.841) and EASL criteria (0.811) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In HBV-predominant high-risk patients, the multi-sequence-based MR radiomics signature, v2018 EASL and LI-RADS criteria demonstrated comparable overall accuracies for HCC.

How high is the inter-observer reproducibility in the LIRADS reporting system?

Purpose

To investigate the reproducibility of LIRADS v2014 and contribute to its widespread use in clinical practice.

Material and methods

This retrospective, single-centre study was conducted between January 2010 and October 2015. A total of 132 patients who had dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/computed tomography (CT) images in the Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) with liver nodule were included in the study, 37 of whom had histopathology results. Five radiologists who participated in the study, interpreted liver nodules independently on different PACS stations according to the LIRADS reporting system and its main parameters.

Results

We determined that level of inter-observer agreement in the LR-1, LR-5, and LR-5V categories was higher than in the LR-2, LR-3, and LR-4 categories (κ = 0.522, 0.442, and 0.600 in the LR-1, LR-5, and LR-5V categories, respectively; κ = 0.082, 0.298, and 0.143 in the LR-2, LR-3, and LR-4 categories, respectively). The parameter that we observed to have the highest level of inter-observer agreement was venous thrombus (κ = 0.600).

Conclusions

Our study showed that LIRADS achieves an acceptable inter-observer reproducibility in terms of clinical practice although it is insufficient at intermediate risk levels. We think that the prevalence of its use will be further increased with training related to the subject and the assignment of numerical values that express the probability of malignancy for each category and including the ancillary features in the algorithm according to clearer rules.

Pitfalls and problems to be solved in the diagnostic CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)

The 2017 Core of the computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) provides clear definitions and concise explanations of the CT/MRI diagnostic algorithm. Nevertheless, there remain some practical and controversial issues that radiologists should be aware of when using the system. This article discusses pitfalls and problems which may be encountered when the version 2017 diagnostic algorithm is used for CT and MRI. The pitfalls include challenges in applying major features and assigning the LR-M category, as well as categorisation discrepancy between CT and MRI. The problems include imprecision of category codes, application of ancillary features, and regional practice variations in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis. Potential solutions are presented along with these pitfalls and problems. KEY POINTS: • Although the diagnostic algorithm provides clear and detailed explanations, major feature evaluation can be subject to pitfalls and differentiation of HCC and non-HCC malignancy remains challenging. • Ancillary features are optional and equally weighted. However, features such as hepatobiliary phase hypointensity and restricted diffusion have greater impact on HCC diagnosis than other ancillary features and may merit greater emphasis or weighting. • LI-RADS was initially developed from a Western paradigm, which may limit its applicability in the East due to regional practice variations. In Eastern Asia, high sensitivity is prioritised over near-perfect specificity for HCC diagnosis in order to detect tumours at early stages.