Comparison of modified CEUS LI-RADS with sonazoid and CT/MRI LI-RADS for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma

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.

Intra-individual comparison of Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound and SonoVue contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

To assess whether the diagnostic performance of Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound (SZUS) is non-inferior to that of SonoVue contrast-enhanced ultrasound (SVUS) in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in individuals with high risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study was conducted from October 2020 to May 2022 and included participants with a high risk of HCC who underwent SZUS and SVUS. All lesions were confirmed by clinical or pathological diagnosis. Each nodule was classified according to the Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2017 (CEUS LI-RADS v2017) for SVUS and SZUS and the modified CEUS LI-RADS (using Kupffer phase defect instead of late and mild washout) for SZUS. The diagnostic performance of both two modalities for all observations was compared. Analysis of the vascular phase and Kupffer phase imaging characteristics of CEUS was performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifteen focal liver lesions from 113 patients (94 HCCs, 12 non-HCC malignancies, and 9 benign lesions) were analysed. According to CEUS LI-RADS (v2017), SVUS and SZUS showed similar sensitivity (71.3% vs. 72.3%) and specificity (85.7% vs. 81.0%) in HCC diagnosis. However, the modified CEUS LI-RADS did not significantly improve the diagnostic efficacy of Sonazoid compared to CEUS LI-RADS v2017, having equivalent sensitivity (73.4% vs. 72.3%) and specificity (81.0% vs. 81.0%). The agreement between SVUS and SZUS for all observations was 0.610 (95% CI 0.475, 0.745), while for HCCs it was 0.452 (95% CI 0.257, 0.647).

CONCLUSION

Using LI-RADS v2017, SZUS and SVUS showed non-inferior efficacy in evaluating HCC lesions. In addition, adding Kupffer phase defects to SZUS does not notably improve its diagnostic efficacy.

Development and Comparison of Prediction Models Based on Sonovue- and Sonazoid-Enhanced Ultrasound for Pathologic Grade and Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed at developing and comparing prediction models based on Sonovue and Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in predicting pathologic grade and microvascular invasion (MVI) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Also investigated was whether Kupffer phase images have additional predictive value for the above pathologic features.

METHODS

Ninety patients diagnosed with primary HCC who had undergone curative hepatectomy were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent conventional ultrasound (CUS), Sonovue-CEUS and Sonazoid-CEUS examinations pre-operatively. Clinical, radiologic and pathologic features including pathologic grade, MVI and CD68 expression were collected. We developed prediction models comprising clinical, CUS and CEUS (Sonovue and Sonazoid, respectively) features for pathologic grade and MVI with both the logistic regression and machine learning (ML) methods.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (45.6%) had poorly differentiated HCC (p-HCC) and 37 (41.1%) were MVI positive. For pathologic grade, the logistic model based on Sonazoid-CEUS had significantly better performance than that based on Sonovue-CEUS (area under the curve [AUC], 0.929 vs. 0.848, p = 0.035), whereas for MVI, these two models had similar accuracy (AUC, 0.810 vs. 0.786, p = 0.068). Meanwhile, we found that well-differentiated HCC tended to have a higher enhancement ratio in 6-12 min during the Kupffer phase of Sonazoid-CEUS, as well as higher CD68 expression compared with p-HCC. In addition, all of these models can effectively predict the risk of recurrence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Sonovue-CEUS and Sonazoid-CEUS were comparably excellent in predicting MVI, while Sonazoid-CEUS was superior to Sonovue-CEUS in predicting pathologic grade because of the Kupffer phase. The enhancement ratio in the Kupffer phase has additional predictive value for pathologic grade prediction.

Comparison of the Feasibility and Diagnostic Performance of ACR CEUS LI-RADS and a Modified CEUS LI-RADS for HCC in Examinations Using Sonazoid

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to determine the feasibility of the American College of Radiology's (ACR) contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) (version 2017) in examinations using Sonazoid and compare its diagnostic performance with that of modified LI-RADS in patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

This retrospective study's sample population consisted of 137 participants with a total of 140 nodules who underwent CEUS with Sonazoid and pathological confirmation via surgery or biopsy from January 2020 to February 2022. The lesions were evaluated and classified based on the reference standards (ie, ACR CEUS LI-RADS and modified LI-RADS). The overall diagnostic capabilities of the two systems were evaluated in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The participants had a median age of 51 years and an interquartile range of 43-58 years. Regarding LR-5 as a predictor of HCC, the accuracy results of the ACR LI-RADS and modified LI-RADS algorithms were 72.9 and 71.4%, respectively (P = .50). The sensitivity of both systems was the same (69.7%; 95% CI: 60.7-77.8%). Regarding LR-M as a predictor of non-HCC malignancy, the diagnostic performance of the algorithms was the same, with accuracy and sensitivity results of 76.4 and 73.3%, respectively (95% CI: 44.9-92.2%).

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that modified LI-RADS had a moderate level of diagnostic performance for HCC in examinations using Sonazoid, which was comparable to ACR LI-RADS.

A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls

Liver cancer is the sixth most detected tumor and the third leading cause of tumor death worldwide. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy with specific risk factors and a targeted population. Imaging plays a major role in the management of HCC from screening to post-therapy follow-up. In order to optimize the diagnostic-therapeutic management and using a universal report, which allows more effective communication among the multidisciplinary team, several classification systems have been proposed over time, and LI-RADS is the most utilized. Currently, LI-RADS comprises four algorithms addressing screening and surveillance, diagnosis on computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diagnosis on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and treatment response on CT/MRI. The algorithm allows guiding the radiologist through a stepwise process of assigning a category to a liver observation, recognizing both major and ancillary features. This process allows for characterizing liver lesions and assessing treatment. In this review, we highlighted both major and ancillary features that could define HCC. The distinctive dynamic vascular pattern of arterial hyperenhancement followed by washout in the portal-venous phase is the key hallmark of HCC, with a specificity value close to 100%. However, the sensitivity value of these combined criteria is inadequate. Recent evidence has proven that liver-specific contrast could be an important tool not only in increasing sensitivity but also in diagnosis as a major criterion. Although LI-RADS emerges as an essential instrument to support the management of liver tumors, still many improvements are needed to overcome the current limitations. In particular, features that may clearly distinguish HCC from cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and combined HCC-CCA lesions and the assessment after locoregional radiation-based therapy are still fields of research.