Extracellular contrast agent-enhanced MRI: 15-min delayed phase may improve the diagnostic performance for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease

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.

The timing phase affected the inconsistency of APHE subtypes of liver observations in patients at risk for HCC on the multi-hepatic arterial phase imaging

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether liver observations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) display inconsistent arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) subtypes on the multi-hepatic arterial phase imaging (mHAP) and to further investigate factors affecting inconsistent APHE subtype of observations on mHAP imaging.

METHODS

From April 2018 to June 2021, a total of 141 patients at high risk of HCC with 238 liver observations who underwent mHAP MRI acquisitions were consecutively included in this retrospective study. Two experienced radiologists reviewed individual arterial phase imaging independently and assessed the enhancement pattern of each liver observation according to LI-RADS. Another two experienced radiologists identified and recorded the genuine timing phase of each phase independently. When a disagreement appeared between the two radiologists, another expert participated in the discussion to get a final decision. A separate descriptive analysis was used for all observations scored APHE by the radiologists. The Kappa coefficient was used to determine the agreement between the two radiologists. Univariate analysis was performed to investigate the factors affecting inconsistent APHE subtype of liver observations on mHAP imaging.

RESULTS

The interobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect agreement on the assessment of timing phase (κ = 0.712-0.887) and evaluation of APHE subtype (κ = 0.795-0.901). A total of 87.8% (209/238) of the observations showed consistent nonrim APHE and 10.2% (24/238) of the observations showed consistent rim APHE on mHAP imaging. A total of 2.1% (5/238) of the liver observations were considered inconsistent APHE subtypes, and all progressed nonrim to rim on mHAP imaging. 87.9% (124/141) of the mHAP acquisitions were all arterial phases and 12.1% (17/141) of the mHAP acquisitions obtained both the arterial phase and portal venous phase. Univariate analysis was performed and found that the timing phase of mHAP imaging affected the consistency of APHE subtype of liver observations. When considering the timing phase and excluding the portal venous phase acquired by mHAP imaging, none of the liver observations showed inconsistent APHE subtypes on mHAP imaging.

CONCLUSION

The timing phase which mHAP acquisition contained portal venous phase affected the inconsistency of APHE subtype of liver observations on mHAP imaging. When evaluating the APHE subtype of liver observations, it's necessary to assess the timing of each phase acquired by the mHAP technique at first.

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.

HCC or Something Else? Frequency of Various Benign and Malignant Etiologies in Cirrhotic Patients with Newly Detected Focal Liver Lesions in Relation to Different Clinical and Sonographic Parameters

Background and Aims: To investigate the frequency of different benign and malignant focal liver lesions (FLLs) in relation to clinical and sonographic features among patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) and newly detected FLLs. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of 225 cirrhotic patients with newly detected FLLs who underwent hepatic ultrasound (US) examinations at our university hospital from 2011 to 2022. The diagnosis of FLLs was based on histology and/or consensus radiological criteria, in accordance with the current diagnostic guidelines. The FLLs were classified into benign (bFLLs) or malignant (mFLLs) lesions and the latter group was subclassified into HCC and non-HCC mFLLs. The frequency, clinical parameters, and sonographic features of the different groups were examined and compared. Results: Of the 225 FLLs, 154 (68.4%) were mFLLs and 71 (31.6%) bFLLs. HCC was the most frequent subcategory of FLLs (132; 58.7%). There were (22; 9.8%) non-HCC mFLLs with 11 (4.9%) metastases and 11 (4.9%) non-HCC primary liver tumors. Regenerative nodules (RNs) were the most frequent form of bFLLs (25; 11.1%), followed by simple cysts (22; 9.8%) and hemangiomas (14; 6.2%). The other bFLLs (10; 14.1%) were fat deposition/sparing (5), hematomas (2), abscesses (2), and echinococcal cysts (1). The distribution of bFLLs and HCC and non-HCC mFLLs varied significantly according to the clinical scenarios. HCC mFLLs were more frequent in males (p = 0.001), in those with no history of active non-hepatic primary malignant disease (NHPMD) (p < 0.001), in those with a hepatitis B or C etiology of LC (p = 0.002), when located in the right lobe (p = 0.008), and when portal vein thrombosis was present (p = 0.03). Conclusion: In cirrhotic patients with newly detected FLLs, the non-HCC etiology was more frequently diagnosed in lesions that were located in the left lobe, in females, and in patients with a history of active NHPMD. Thus, the lower frequency of HCC in the abovementioned groups demonstrated that a cautious implementation of the current consensus radiological criteria would be required for these groups, particularly in patients with an active NHPMD, given the fact that the consensus criteria were not validated in these populations. A more active diagnostic approach may ultimately be needed for these patients. Large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

MR Imaging Contrast Agents: Role in Imaging of Chronic Liver Diseases

Contrast-enhanced MR imaging plays an important role in the evaluation of patients with chronic liver disease, particularly for detection and characterization of liver lesions. The two most commonly used contrast agents for liver MR imaging are extracellular agents (ECAs) and hepatobiliary agents (HBAs). In patients with liver disease, the main advantage of ECA-enhanced MR imaging is its high specificity for the diagnosis of progressed HCCs. Conversely, HBAs have an additional contrast mechanism, which results in high liver-to-lesion contrast and highest sensitivity for lesion detection in the hepatobiliary phase. Emerging data suggest that features depicted on contrast-enhanced MR imaging scans are related to tumor biology and are predictive of patients' prognosis, likely to further expand the role of contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the clinical care of patients with chronic liver disease.

The role of lesion hypointensity on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MRI as an additional major imaging feature for HCC classification using LI-RADS v2018 criteria

OBJECTIVES

To determine the value of lesion hypointensity in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI as an additional major imaging feature for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using LI-RADS v2018 criteria.

METHODS

Between March 2016 and August 2018, 235 patients with 250 hepatic nodules at high risk of HCC underwent gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. Two radiologists independently evaluated the imaging features and classified the nodules based on LI-RADS v2018 criteria, and their consensus data were used to calculate the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS categories. Two modified LI-RADS definitions were as follows: (1) LI-RADS-m1: HBP hypointensity as an additional major feature; (2) LI-RADS-m2: HBP hypointensity as an alternative to "enhancing capsule" as an additional major feature. The diagnostic performance of LR-5 categories was compared using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity for LR-5 classification using original LI-RADS v2018 criteria were 78.1% and 96.3%, respectively. Significantly improved sensitivity (82.7%; p = 0.004) with unchanged specificity (96.3%; p = 1.00) was seen for LR-5 classification using LI-RADS-m1. Similar sensitivity and specificity (82.7% and 96.3%, respectively) were also seen using LI-RADS-m2. Significantly improved sensitivity (79.5% vs. 64.0%; p = 0.031) with unchanged specificity (96.2% vs. 96.2%, p = 1.00) was seen using both LI-RADS-m1 and LI-RADS-m2 compared to the original LI-RADS v2018 for 39 HCC nodules measuring 10-19 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesion hypointensity on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced HBP MRI may improve sensitivity for LR-5 classification beyond that achievable using conventional LI-RADS v2018 criteria. Lesion hypointensity may prove a suitable alternative imaging feature to enhancing capsule for accurate LR-5 classification.

KEY POINTS

• Including lesion hypointensity in the HBP as an additional major feature improved sensitivity for LR-5 classification on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. • Lesion hypointensity in the HBP can replace "enhancing capsule" as an additional major feature for LR-5 classification without impairing specificity.

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.

Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: can hypointensity on the late portal venous phase be used as an alternative to washout?

PURPOSE

To investigate the added value of considering hypointensity on late portal venous phase (LPVP) images as washout for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD).

METHODS

This retrospective study comprised 97 patients at high risk for HCC who underwent Gd-EOB-MRI including unenhanced, multi-arterial phase, conventional portal venous phase (CPVP, 60 s), and LPVP (mean, 99.9 ± 9.1 s; range, 90-119 s) images. A total of 115 hepatic lesions were identified by histopathological or clinical diagnosis. Three independent radiologists assessed the MRI images by consensus. Diagnosis of HCC was made using criteria of arterial hyperenhancement and hypointensity relative to the surrounding liver parenchyma (1) on CPVP or (2) on CPVP and/or LPVP images. The generalized estimating equation was used to compare diagnostic performance for HCC between Criterion 1 and 2.

RESULTS

In 82 HCCs, the frequency of hypointensity differed significantly between the CPVP and LPVP images (64.6% [53/82] vs. 84.1% [69/82], P < 0.001). Among 33 non-HCCs, two cHCC-CCs showed additional hypointensity on LPVP than CPVP images (33.3% [11/33] vs. 39.4% [13/33], P = 0.500). Criterion 2 provided significantly greater sensitivity for diagnosing HCC than Criterion 1 (54.9% [45/82] vs. 74.4% [61/82], P < 0.001), with relatively little reduction in specificity (90.9% [30/33] vs. 84.8% [28/33], P = 0.145).

CONCLUSION

Additional use of LPVP hypointensity as washout could significantly improve sensitivity for HCC diagnosis when utilizing Gd-EOB-MRI in patients with CLD, without a significant decrease in specificity.

Optimization of timing of hepatocellular phase imaging after gadoxetate disodium injection for evaluation of patients with neuroendocrine tumor

PURPOSE

Metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (mGEP-NEN) are indolent malignancies which undergo frequent imaging follow-up. Hepatocellular phase (HCP) MR with hepatocellular-specific contrast agent is widely used to evaluate mGEP-NEN liver metastases but is commonly performed after a 20-min delay which prolongs scan time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if HCP MR at 15 min offers comparable performance to 20-min delay for patients with mGEP-NEN undergoing routine imaging surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this IRB-approved retrospective study, we evaluated 52 patients with mGEP-NEN who were imaged for routine surveillance with gadoxetate disodium (Eovist^®)-enhanced MR including 15- and 20-min delayed HCP. Two readers (R1, R2), blinded to HCP timing, independently reviewed each set of images in random order at least 1 month apart. Readers assessed presence and conspicuity of metastases, and subjective image quality using 5-point scales. Readers quantified the number of metastases and diameter of the largest lesion. Statistical analysis was performed to determine individual-reader and inter-reader differences for qualitative and quantitative data.

RESULTS

No differences were observed for subjective image quality (R1 p = 0.86, R2 p = 0.17) or lesion conspicuity (R1 p = 0.56, R2 p = 0.74) at 15 min and 20 min for either reader. Individual-reader concordance correlation coefficient between 15 and 20 min was high for number of metastases detected (R1 = 0.9842, R2 = 0.9579) and diameter of largest metastasis (R1 = 0.9629, R2 = 0.8859).

CONCLUSION

HCP imaging at 15 min provides similar diagnostic yield to standard 20-min delay, which may help reduce the scan time and costs, and improve throughput and patient satisfaction.

Optimal lexicon of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma modified from LI-RADS

PURPOSE

To define the optimal lexicon of major imaging findings on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRIs to diagnose HCC to improve diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS.

METHODS

Two hundred forty-one hepatic lesions (149 HCC, six other malignancies, 86 benign lesions) in 177 treatment-naïve patients at risk of HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid-MRIs from January 2013 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed using either histopathological or follow-up imaging findings as a standard reference. Two board-certified radiologists independently evaluated the imaging features and categorized the nodules based on the original and the following modified definitions in LI-RADS: (1) washout appearance in the portal venous phase (PVP) only versus that in the PVP or transitional phase, and (2) enhancing capsule only versus enhancing or non-enhancing capsule. Diagnostic performance and inter-observer agreement of LR-5 were assessed and compared between the algorithms using generalized estimation equation.

RESULTS

The sensitivity [79.2% (95% confidence interval 71.9, 85.0)] and accuracy [84.6% (79.5, 88.7)] of LR-5 were significantly higher for modified lexicon compared with original LI-RADS [60.4% (52.3, 67.9) and 73.9% (67.9, 79.0); P < 0.001 in all cases]. There was no significant difference in specificity [93.5% (86.2, 97.0) and 95.7% (89.0, 98.4); P = 0.153]. Subgroups of lesions < or ≥ 2 cm showed similar tendencies. Inter-observer agreement for capsule appearance was fair to moderate, whereas that for other imaging findings was good to excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to original LI-RADS, LI-RADS with modified lexicon showed higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC using gadoxetic acid-MRI, with similar specificity.

Introduction to the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The Liver Imaging Reporting And Data System (LI-RADS) was created with the support of the American College of Radiology (ACR) to standardize the acquisition, interpretation, reporting, and data collection for imaging examinations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A comprehensive and rigorous system developed by radiologists, hepatologists, pathologists, and surgeons, LI-RADS addresses a wide range of imaging contexts. Currently, 4 algorithms are available publicly on the ACR website: ultrasound for HCC surveillance, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for HCC diagnosis and tumor staging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound for HCC diagnosis, and computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment. Each algorithm is supported by a decision tree, categorization table, lexicon, atlas, technical requirements, and reporting and management guidance. Category codes reflecting the relative probability of HCC and malignancy are assigned to imaging-detected liver observations, with emerging evidence suggesting that LI-RADS accurately stratifies HCC and malignancy probabilities. LI-RADS is an evolving system and has been updated and refined iteratively since 2011 based on scientific evidence, expert opinion, and user feedback, with input from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Concurrent with its most recent update, LI-RADS was integrated into the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases HCC guidance released in 2018. We anticipate continued refinement of LI-RADS and progressive adoption by radiologists worldwide, with the eventual goal of culminating in a single unified system for international use.

Accuracy of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Image Analysis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma or Overall Malignancy-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) categorizes observations from imaging analyses of high-risk patients based on the level of suspicion for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and overall malignancy. The categories range from definitely benign (LR-1) to definitely HCC (LR-5), malignancy (LR-M), or tumor in vein (LR-TIV) based on findings from computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. However, the actual percentage of HCC and overall malignancy within each LI-RADS category is not known. We performed a systematic review to determine the percentage of observations in each LI-RADS category for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging that are HCCs or malignancies.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus databases from 2014 through 2018 for studies that reported the percentage of observations in each LI-RADS v2014 and v2017 category that were confirmed as HCCs or other malignancies based on pathology, follow-up imaging analyses, or response to treatment (reference standard). Data were assessed on a per-observation basis. Random-effects models were used to determine the pooled percentages of HCC and overall malignancy for each LI-RADS category. Differences between categories were compared by analysis of variance of logit-transformed percentage of HCC and overall malignancy. Risk of bias and concerns about applicability were assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 454 studies identified, 17 (all retrospective studies) were included in the final analysis, consisting of 2760 patients, 3556 observations, and 2482 HCCs. The pooled percentages of observations confirmed as HCC and overall malignancy, respectively, were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92%-96%) and 97% (95% CI 95%-99%) for LR-5, 74% (95% CI 67%-80%) and 80% (95% CI 75%-85%) for LR-4, 38% (95% CI 31%-45%) and 40% (95% CI 31%-50%) for LR-3, 13% (95% CI 8%-22%) and 14% (95% CI 9%-21%) for LR-2, 79% (95% CI 63%-89%) and 92% (95% CI 77%-98%) for LR-TIV, and 36% (95% CI 26%-48%) and 93% (95% CI 87%-97%) for LR-M. No malignancies were found in the LR-1 group. The percentage of HCCs and overall malignancies confirmed differed significantly among LR groups 2-5 (P < .00001). Patient selection was the most frequent factor that affected bias risk, because of verification bias and case-control study design.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review, we found that increasing LI-RADS categories contained increasing percentages of HCCs and overall malignancy based on reference standard confirmation. Of observations categorized as LR-M, 93% were malignancies and 36% were confirmed as HCCs. The percentage of HCCs found in the LR-2 and LR-3 categories indicate the need for a more active management strategy than currently recommended. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings. PROSPERO number CRD42018087441.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: Can LI-RADS v2017 with gadoxetic-acid enhancement magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging improve diagnostic accuracy?

BACKGROUND

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), supported by the American College of Radiology (ACR), has been developed for standardizing the acquisition, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver imaging examinations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), which is described as an ancillary imaging feature of LI-RADS, can improve the diagnostic efficiency of LI-RADS v2017 with gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for HCC.

AIM

To determine whether the use of DWI can improve the diagnostic efficiency of LI-RADS v2017 with gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance MRI for HCC.

METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved study, 245 observations of high risk of HCC were retrospectively acquired from 203 patients who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI from October 2013 to April 2018. Two readers independently measured the maximum diameter and recorded the presence of each lesion and assigned scores according to LI-RADS v2017. The test was used to determine the agreement between the two readers with or without DWI. In addition, the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), accuracy (AC), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of LI-RADS were calculated. Youden index values were used to compare the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS with or without DWI.

RESULTS

Almost perfect interobserver agreement was obtained for the categorization of observations with LI-RADS (kappa value: 0.813 without DWI and 0.882 with DWI). For LR-5, the diagnostic SE, SP, and AC values were 61.2%, 92.5%, and 71.4%, respectively, with or without DWI; for LR-4/5, they were 73.9%, 80%, and 75.9% without DWI and 87.9%, 80%, and 85.3% with DWI; for LR-4/5/M, they were 75.8%, 58.8%, and 70.2% without DWI and 87.9%, 58.8%, and 78.4% with DWI; for LR- 4/5/TIV, they were 75.8%, 75%, and 75.5% without DWI and 89.7%, 75%, and 84.9% with DWI. The Youden index values of the LI-RADS classification without or with DWI were as follows: LR-4/5: 0.539 vs 0.679; LR-4/5/M: 0.346 vs 0.467; and LR-4/5/TIV: 0.508 vs 0.647.

CONCLUSION

LI-RADS v2017 has been successfully applied with gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for patients at high risk for HCC. The addition of DWI significantly increases the diagnostic efficiency for HCC.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Version 2018: Imaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in At-Risk Patients

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is composed of four individual algorithms intended to standardize the lexicon, as well as reporting and care, in patients with or at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma in the context of surveillance with US; diagnosis with CT, MRI, or contrast material-enhanced US; and assessment of treatment response with CT or MRI. This report provides a broad overview of LI-RADS, including its historic development, relationship to other imaging guidelines, composition, aims, and future directions. In addition, readers will understand the motivation for and key components of the 2018 update.