Retrospective comparison of EASL 2018 and LI-RADS 2018 for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 category 5 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed an updated meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) 5 category for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018), and to evaluate differences by imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 using v2018 for diagnosing HCC. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies qualified for the meta-analysis, comprising 9031 patients, 10,547 observations, and 7216 HCCs. The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC were 66% (95% CI, 61-70%) and 91% (95% CI, 89-93%), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, MRI with extracellular agent (ECA-MRI) showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (77% [95% CI, 70-82%]) than CT (66% [95% CI, 58-73%]; p = 0.023) or MRI with gadoxetate (Gx-MRI) (65% [95% CI, 60-70%]; p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference between ECA-MRI and MRI with gadobenate (gadobenate-MRI) (73% [95% CI, 61-82%]; p = 0.495). Pooled specificities were 88% (95% CI, 80-93%) for CT, 92% (95% CI, 86-95%) for ECA-MRI, 93% (95% CI, 91-95%) for Gx-MRI, and 91% (95% CI, 84-95%) for gadobenate-MRI without significant differences (p = 0.084-0.803).

CONCLUSIONS

LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material, while ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT or Gx-MRI.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Refinement of the criteria for improving sensitivity while maintaining high specificity of LR-5 for HCC diagnosis may be an essential future direction.

KEY POINTS

• The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC using LI-RADSv2018 were 66% and 91%, respectively. • ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT (77% vs 66%, p = 0.023) or Gx-MRI (77% vs 65%, p = 0.001). • LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity (88-93%) for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material type.

Evidence Supporting Diagnostic Value of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for CT- and MR Imaging-based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Based on the Liver Imaging Data and Reporting System (LI-RADS) guidelines, Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) can be diagnosed using imaging criteria in patients at risk of HCC.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic value of LI-RADS in high-risk patients with HCC.

Material and Methods

This systematic review is conducted on international databases, including Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, PROQUEST, and Cochrane Library, with appropriate keywords. Using the binomial distribution formula, the variance of each study was calculated, and all the data were analyzed using STATA version 16. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were determined using a random-effects meta-analysis approach. Also, we used the chi-squared test and I2 index to calculate heterogeneity among studies, and Funnel plots and Egger tests were used for evaluating publication bias.

Results

The pooled sensitivity was estimated at 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84). According to different types of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (LI-RADS), the highest pooled sensitivity was in version 2018 (0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87) (I2: 80.6%, P of chi 2 test for heterogeneity <0.001 and T2: 0.001). The pooled specificity was estimated as 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.92). According to different types of LI-RADS, the highest pooled specificity was in version 2014 (93.0 (95% CI 89.0-96.0) (I2: 81.7%, P of chi 2 test for heterogeneity <0.001 and T2: 0.001).

Conclusion

LI-RADS can assist radiologists in achieving the required sensitivity and specificity in high-risk patients suspected to have HCC. Therefore, this strategy can serve as an appropriate tool for identifying HCC.

Liver imaging reporting and data system diagnostic performance in hepatocellular carcinoma when modifying the definition of "washout" on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The sensitivity of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) was suboptimal. This study evaluated the LI-RADS diagnostic performance in HCC when modifying the definition of washout using the transition phase (TP) or hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity on EOB-MRI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients at high risk of HCC who underwent EOB-MRI from June 2016 to June 2021. Three modified LI-RADS (mLI-RADS) algorithms were formulated according to different definitions of washout as follows: (a) portal venous phase (PVP) or TP hypointensity, (b) PVP or HBP hypointensity, and (c) PVP or TP or HBP hypointensity. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, was compared between mLI-RADS and LI-RADS v2018 using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients with 426 pathologically confirmed hepatic observations (250 HCCs, 88 nonHCC malignancies, and 88 benign lesions) were included in our study. The sensitivity rates of mLI-RADS a-c (80.0 %, 80.8 %, and 80.8 %) were all higher than that of LI-RADS v2018 (74.4 %) (all p < 0.05). The specificity rates of mLI-RADS a-c (86.9 %, 85.8 %, and 85.8 %) were all slightly lower than that of LI-RADS v2018 (88.6 %), although no statistically significant difference was noted (all p > 0.05). The accuracies of the three mLI-RADS algorithms were the same and were all higher than that of LI-RADS v2018 (82.9 % vs. 80.3 %, all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

When the definition of washout appearance was extended to TP or HBP hypointensity on EOB-MRI, the diagnostic sensitivity of LI-RADS for HCC improved without decreasing specificity.

Threshold growth has a limited role in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from other focal hepatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The role of threshold growth, as one of the major features (MFs) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is inconsistent. This study evaluated the LI-RADS diagnostic performance for HCC when threshold growth was removed or replaced by independently significant ancillary features (AFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective institutional review board-approved study included patients with a high HCC risk who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRIs. The MRI findings were consistent with pathologically proven focal hepatic observations. The pathological results were used as the gold standard reference. The sizes of the lesions with and without threshold growth were compared. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to confirm the independently significant AFs of HCC. In addition to the classification criteria of LI-RADS version 2018 (LI-RADS v2018), the lesions were also reclassified according to the following two schemes: scheme A, using all MFs except threshold growth, with threshold growth feature treated as an AF favouring malignancy; and scheme B, replacing the threshold growth feature with independently significant AFs and treated them as new MFs. The diagnostic performance of the above two LI-RADS schemes for HCC was calculated and compared with that of LI-RADS v2018. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients and 426 observations were included. Threshold growth was not an independent significant MF for HCC diagnosis [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6-1.8; p = 0.927]. For all three groups of observations (HCCs, non-HCC malignancies, and benign lesions), the mean size with threshold growth was smaller than that without threshold growth (all p < 0.05). The nodule-in-nodule feature was an independent significant AF (OR, 9.8; 95% CI, 1.2-79.3; p = 0.032) and was used to replace threshold growth as a new MF in scheme B. The sensitivities of schemes A and B were 74.0% and 75.6%, respectively. The specificities of schemes A and B were the same (88.6%). None of the diagnostic performance metrics for HCC (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) of either scheme A or B was significantly different from those of LI-RADS v2018 (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Threshold growth is not an independently significant MF for HCC diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of LI-RADS for HCC is not affected regardless of whether threshold growth is removed from the list of MFs or replaced with an independently significant and more HCC-specific AF, which is the nodule-in-nodule feature.

Consensus report from the 10th Global Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging: developments in HCC management

The 10th Global Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was held as a virtual 2-day meeting in October 2021, attended by delegates from North and South America, Asia, Australia, and Europe. Most delegates were radiologists with experience in liver MRI, with representation also from specialists in liver surgery, oncology, and hepatology. Presentations, discussions, and working groups at the Forum focused on the following themes: • Gadoxetic acid in clinical practice: Eastern and Western perspectives on current uses and challenges in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening/surveillance, diagnosis, and management • Economics and outcomes of HCC imaging • Radiomics, artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) applications of MRI in HCC. These themes are the subject of the current manuscript. A second manuscript discusses multidisciplinary tumor board perspectives: how to approach early-, mid-, and late-stage HCC management from the perspectives of a liver surgeon, interventional radiologist, and oncologist (Taouli et al, 2023). Delegates voted on consensus statements that were developed by working groups on these meeting themes. A consensus was considered to be reached if at least 80% of the voting delegates agreed on the statements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This review highlights the clinical applications of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for liver cancer screening and diagnosis, as well as its cost-effectiveness and the applications of radiomics and AI in patients with liver cancer. KEY POINTS: • Interpretation of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI differs slightly between Eastern and Western guidelines, reflecting different regional requirements for sensitivity vs specificity. • Emerging data are encouraging for the cost-effectiveness of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in HCC screening and diagnosis, but more studies are required. • Radiomics and artificial intelligence are likely, in the future, to contribute to the detection, staging, assessment of treatment response and prediction of prognosis of HCC-reducing the burden on radiologists and other specialists and supporting timely and targeted treatment for patients.

Diagnostic Performance of the 2018 EASL vs. LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be diagnosed without pathologic confirmation in high-risk patients. Therefore, it is necessary to compare current imaging criteria for noninvasive-diagnosis of HCC.

PURPOSE

To systematically compare performance of 2018 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for noninvasive-diagnosis of HCC.

STUDY TYPE

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SUBJECTS

Eight studies with 2232 observations, including 1617 HCCs.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

1.5 T, 3.0 T/T2-weighted, unenhanced T1-weighted in-/opposed-phases, multiphase T1-weighted imaging.

ASSESSMENT

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two reviewers independently reviewed and extracted data, including patient characteristics, index test, reference standard and outcomes, from studies intraindividually comparing the sensitivities and specificities of 2018 EASL-criteria and LR-5 of LI-RADS for HCC. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated using QUADAS-2 tool. Subgroup analysis was performed based on observation size (≥20 mm, 10-19 mm).

STATISTICAL TESTS

Bivariate random-effects model to calculate pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of both imaging criteria, and pooled estimates of intraindividual paired data were compared considering the correlation. Forest and linked-receiver-operating-characteristic plots were drawn, and study heterogeneity was assessed using Q-test and Higgins-index. Publication bias was evaluated by Egger's test. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant, except for heterogeneity (P < 0.10).

RESULTS

The sensitivity for HCC did not differ significantly between the imaging-based diagnosis using EASL-criteria (61%; 95% CI, 50%-73%) and LR-5 (64%; 95% CI, 53%-76%; P = 0.165). The specificities were also not significantly different between EASL-criteria (92%; 95% CI, 89%-94%) and LR-5 (94%; 95% CI, 91%-96%; P = 0.257). In subgroup analysis, no statistically significant differences were identified in the pooled performances between the two criteria for observations ≥20 mm (sensitivity P = 0.065; specificity P = 0.343) or 10-19 mm (sensitivity P > 0.999; specificity P = 0.851). There was no publication bias for EASL (P = 0.396) and LI-RADS (P = 0.526).

DATA CONCLUSION

In the present meta-analysis of paired comparisons, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were not significantly different between 2018 EASL-criteria and LR-5 of LI-RADS for noninvasive-diagnosis of HCC.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

3.

TECHNICAL EFFICACY

Stage 2.

Adherence to LI-RADS and EASL high-risk population criteria: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) diagnostic criteria for noninvasive diagnosis of HCC can only be applied to patients at a high risk of HCC. This systematic review assesses adherence to the LI-RADS and EASL high-risk population criteria in published studies.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

PubMed was searched for original research, published between January 2012 and December 2021, reporting LI-RADS and EASL diagnostic criteria on contrast-enhanced ultrasound, CT, or MRI. The algorithm version, publication year, risk status, and etiologies of chronic liver disease were recorded for each study. Adherence to high-risk population criteria was evaluated as optimal (unequivocal adherence), suboptimal (equivocal), or inadequate (clear violation). A total of 219 original studies were included, with 215 that used the LI-RADS criteria, 4 EASL only, and 15 that evaluated both LI-RADS and EASL criteria. Optimal, suboptimal, or inadequate adherence to high-risk population criteria was observed in 111/215 (51.6%), 86/215 (40.0%), and 18/215 (8.4%) LI-RADS and 6/19 (31.6%), 5/19 (26.3%), and 8/19 (42.1%) EASL studies ( p < 0.001) regardless of the imaging modality. Adherence to high-risk population criteria significantly improved according to the CT/MRI LI-RADS versions (optimal in v2018 in 64.5% of studies; v2017, 45.8%; v2014, 24.4%; v2013.1, 33.3%; p < 0.001) and the publication year (2020-2021, 62.5%; 2018-2019, 33.9%; 2014-2017, 39.3% of all LI-RADS studies; p = 0.002). No significant differences in adherence to high-risk population criteria were observed in the versions of contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS ( p = 0.388) or EASL ( p = 0.293).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to high-risk population criteria was optimal or suboptimal in about 90% and 60% of LI-RADS and EASL studies, respectively.

LI-RADS v2018: utilizing ancillary features on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI to improve the diagnostic performance of small hapatocellular carcinoma (≤ 20 mm)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the role of ancillary features (AFs) of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in the diagnostic performance of small HCC (≤ 20 mm) on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

METHODS

A total of 154 patients with 183 hepatic observations were analysed in this retrospective study. Observations were categorized using only major features (MFs) and combined MFs and AFs. Independently significant AFs were identified through logistic regression analysis, and upgraded LR-5 criteria were developed using these as new MFs. The diagnostic performance of the modified LI-RADS (mLI-RADS) was calculated and compared with that of LI-RADS v2018 using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Restricted diffusion, transitional and hepatobiliary phase hypointensity were independently significant AFs. The mLI-RADS a, c, e, g, h and i (upgraded LR-4 lesions that were categorized using only MFs to LR-5 using a certain or any one, two, three of the above AFs as new MFs) yielded a significantly greater sensitivity than that of the LI-RADS v2018 (68.0%, 69.1%, 69.1%, 69.1%, 69.1%, 68.0% vs. 61.9%, all p < 0.05), whereas the specificities were not significantly different (84.9%, 86.0%, 84.9%, 83.7%, 84.9%, 87.2% vs. 88.4% all p > 0.05). When independently significant AFs were used to upgrade the LR-4 nodules categorized by combined MFs and AFs (mLI-RADS b, d and f), the sensitivities were improved, but the specificities were decreased (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Independently significant AFs may be used to upgrade an observation from LR-4 (categorized only using MFs) to LR-5, which can improve diagnostic performance for small 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.

[CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS): Standardization, Evidence, and Future Direction]

The liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) has been developed with the support of the American College of Radiology to standardize the diagnosis and evaluation of treatment response of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2018 has been incorporated in the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidance. This review examines the effect of CT/MRI LI-RADS on the standardized reporting of liver imaging, and the evidence in diagnosing HCC and evaluating treatment response after locoregional treatment using CT/MRI LI-RADS. The results are compared with other HCC diagnosis guidelines, and future directions are described.

Role of LI-RADS Indeterminate Observations in the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after HCV Eradication with Direct-Acting Antivirals

Purpose: To assess whether HCC (LR-5) occurrence may be associated with the presence of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) indeterminate observations in patients with hepatitis C virus infection treated with direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included patients with HCV-related cirrhosis who achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) after DAA therapy between 2015 and 2019 and submitted to CT/MRI follow-ups with a minimum interval time of six months before and after DAA. Two blinded readers reviewed CT/MRI to categorize observations according to LI-RADS version 2018. Differences in rate of LI-RADS 5 observations (i.e., LR-5) before and after SVR were assessed. Time to LR-5 occurrence and risk factors for HCC after DAAs were evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model, respectively. Results: Our final study population comprised 115 patients (median age 72 years) with a median CT/MRI follow-up of 47 months (IQR 26–77 months). Twenty-nine (25.2%) patients were diagnosed with LR-5 after DAA. The incidence of LR-5 after DAAs was 10.4% (12/115) at one year and 17.4% (20/115) at two years. LR-5 occurrence after DAA was significantly higher in patients with Child Pugh class B (log-rank p = 0.048) and with LR-3 or LR-4 observations (log-rank p = 0.024). At multivariate analysis, Child-Pugh class B (hazard ratio 2.62, p = 0.023) and presence of LR-3 or LR-4 observations (hazard ratio 2.40, p = 0.048) were independent risk factors for LR-5 occurrence after DAA therapy. Conclusions: The presence of LR-3 and LR-4 observations significantly increases HCC risk following the eradication of HCV infection.

Gadoxetate-Enhanced MRI as a Diagnostic Tool in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Report from a 2020 Asia-Pacific Multidisciplinary Expert Meeting

Gadoxetate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used in clinical practice for liver imaging. For optimal use, we must understand both its advantages and limitations. This article is the outcome of an online advisory board meeting and subsequent discussions by a multidisciplinary group of experts on liver diseases across the Asia-Pacific region, first held on September 28, 2020. Here, we review the technical considerations for the use of gadoxetate, its current role in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and its relevance in consensus guidelines for HCC imaging diagnosis. In the latter part of this review, we examine recent evidence evaluating the impact of gadoxetate on clinical outcomes on a continuum from diagnosis to treatment decision-making and follow-up. In conclusion, we outline the potential future roles of gadoxetate MRI based on an evolving understanding of the clinical utility of this contrast agent in the management of patients at risk of, or with, HCC.

Risk Stratification and Distribution of Hepatocellular Carcinomas in CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS: A Meta-Analysis

Background

CEUS LI-RADS and CT/MRI LI-RADS have been used in clinical practice for several years. However, there is a lack of evidence-based study to compare the proportion of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) in each category and the distribution of HCCs of these two categorization systems.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of HCCs between corresponding CEUS LI-RADS and CT/MRI LI-RADS categories and the distribution of HCCs and non-HCC malignancies in each category.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases from January 2014 to December 2021. The proportion of HCCs and non-HCC malignancies and the corresponding sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) of the LR-5 and LR-M categories were determined using a random-effect model.

Results

A total of 43 studies were included. The proportion of HCCs in CEUS LR-5 was 96%, and that in CECT/MRI LR-5 was 95% (p > 0.05). The proportion of non-HCC malignancy in CEUS LR-M was lower than that of CT/MRI LR-M (35% vs. 58%, p = 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS LR-5 for HCCs were 73%, 92%, and 78%, respectively, and of CT/MRI LR-5 for HCCs, 69%, 92%, and 76%, respectively.

Conclusion

With the upshift of the LI-RADS category, the proportion of HCCs increased. CEUS LR-3 has a lower risk of HCCs than CT/MRI LR-3. CEUS LR-5 and CT/MRI LR-5 have a similar diagnostic performance for HCCs. CEUS LR-M has a higher proportion of HCCs and a lower proportion of non-HCC malignancies compared with CT/MRI LR-M.

MRI-diagnosis of category LR-M observations in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We performed a meta-analysis to determine the probability of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and non-HCC malignancies in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) observations and the frequency of defined LR-M imaging features on MRI using LI-RADS v2018.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify studies published from 1 January 2018 to 16 March 2021 reporting the probability of category LR-M in HCC and non-HCC malignancies on MRI. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in the LR-M observations were evaluated. Meta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors for study heterogeneity. The frequencies of defined LR-M imaging features were also calculated. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies reporting the diagnostic performance of the LR-M category (3,812 observations in 3,615 patients), with nine studies reporting the frequencies of LR-M imaging features. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in the LR-M observations were 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21-38%) and 67% (95%CI, 57-77%), respectively. The study type and inclusion of benign lesions were significant factors for study heterogeneity. Of the 10 LR-M imaging features, rim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) showed the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies (68%; 95%CI, 61-75%).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-M category was commonly used to characterize non-HCC malignancies, but also included 29% of HCC. The frequencies of the different LR-M imaging features were variable, with rim APHE showing the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies.

KEY POINTS

• In the LR-M category using LI-RADS v2018 for MRI, the pooled percentage of malignancies in general was 96%, with 29% HCC and 67% non-HCC malignancies, while the remaining 4% was benign entity. • The study type and inclusion of benign lesions were significant factors contributing to substantial heterogeneity among included studies. • The frequencies of the different LR-M imaging features were variable, with rim APHE showing the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies.

Imaging Diagnosis of HCC: Future directions with special emphasis on hepatobiliary MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a unique cancer entity that can be noninvasively diagnosed using imaging modalities without pathologic confirmation. In 2018, several major guidelines for HCC were updated to include hepatobiliary contrast agent magnetic resonance imaging (HBA-MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as major imaging modalities for HCC diagnosis. HBA-MRI enables the achievement of high sensitivity in HCC detection using the hepatobiliary phase (HBP). CEUS is another imaging modality with real-time imaging capability, and it is reported to be useful as a second-line modality to increase sensitivity without losing specificity for HCC diagnosis. However, until now, there is an unsolved discrepancy among guidelines on whether to accept “HBP hypointensity” as a definite diagnostic criterion for HCC or include CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm for HCC diagnosis. Furthermore, there is variability in terminology and inconsistencies in the definition of imaging findings among guidelines; therefore, there is an unmet need for the development of a standardized lexicon. In this article, we review the performance and limitations of HBA-MRI and CEUS after guideline updates in 2018 and briefly introduce some future aspects of imaging-based HCC diagnosis.

Accuracy of Various Forms of Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be used to identify patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, studies around the world have found differing diagnostic accuracies for the technique. Hence, we designed this meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI for HCC diagnosis.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search for all studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI for HCC in the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception until January 2021. We used the "Midas" package from the STATA software to perform the meta-analysis.

Results

Our study was based on 21 publications with 5,361 patients. The pooled HCC diagnosis sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% CI, 70%-80%) and 90% (95% CI, 88%-92%), respectively, for gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI; and they were 70% (95% CI, 57%-81%) and 94% (95% CI, 85%-97%), respectively, for MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI). We found significant heterogeneity with a significant chi-square test and an I ² statistic >75%. We also found significant publication bias as per Deeks' test results and funnel plot.

Conclusion

We found that both types of contrast-enhanced MRI are accurate diagnostic and surveillance tools for HCC and offer high sensitivity and specificity. Further studies on different ethnic populations are required to strengthen our findings.

EASL versus LI-RADS: Intra-individual comparison of MRI with extracellular contrast and gadoxetic acid for diagnosis of small HCC

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and European Association for the Study (EASL) criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis have been updated in 2018. We aimed to compare the HCC diagnostic performance of LI-RADS and EASL criteria with extracellular contrast agents-MRI (ECA-MRI) and hepatobiliary agents-MRI (HBA-MRI).

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 179 participants with cirrhosis (n = 105) or non-cirrhotic chronic hepatitis B (CHB) (n = 74) who underwent both ECA-MRI and HBA-MRI before surgery for de novo nodule(s) measuring 10-30 mm. We compared the HCC diagnostic performance of EASL and LR-5 in both MRIs.

RESULTS

In an analysis of 215 observations (175 HCCs, 17 non-HCC malignancies and 23 benign lesions) identified from cirrhotic or non-cirrhotic CHB participants, LR-5 with ECA-MRI provided the highest sensitivity (80.7%), followed by EASL with ECA-MRI (76.2%), LR-5 with HBA-MRI (67.3%) and EASL with HBA-MRI (63.0%, all P < .05). The specificities were comparable (89.4%-91.5%). When the analysis is limited to participants with pathological cirrhosis (123 observations), the sensitivity of LR-5 with ECA-MRI was similar to that of EASL with ECA-MRI (82.7% vs 80.2%, P = .156), but higher than LR-5 with HBA-MRI (65.1%) or EASL with HBA-MRI (62.8%, both P < .001), with comparable specificities (87.5%-91.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-5 with ECA-MRI yielded the highest sensitivity with a similar specificity for HCC diagnosis in cirrhosis and non-cirrhotic CHB participants, while the sensitivities of LR-5 and EASL with ECA-MRI are similar for cirrhosis participants. This indicates non-invasive diagnosis criteria can differ by contrast agents and presence of cirrhosis.

Should Threshold Growth Be Considered a Major Feature in the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using LI-RADS?

OBJECTIVE

Based on the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 (LI-RADS, v2018), this study aimed to analyze LR-5 diagnostic performance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) when threshold growth as a major feature is replaced by a more HCC-specific ancillary feature, as well as the frequency of threshold growth in HCC and non-HCC malignancies and its association with tumor size.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included treatment-naive patients who underwent gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRIs for focal hepatic lesions and surgery between January 2009 and December 2016. The frequency of major and ancillary features was evaluated for HCC and non-HCC malignancies, and the LR-category was assessed. Ancillary features that were significantly more prevalent in HCC were then used to either replace threshold growth or were added as additional major features, and the diagnostic performance of the readjusted LR category was compared to the LI-RADS v2018.

RESULTS

A total of 1013 observations were analyzed. Unlike arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout, or enhancing capsule which were more prevalent in HCCs than in non-HCC malignancies (521/616 vs. 18/58, 489/616 vs. 19/58, and 181/616 vs. 5/58, respectively; p < 0.001), threshold growth was more prevalent in non-HCC malignancies than in HCCs (11/23 vs. 17/119; p < 0.001). The mean size of non-HCC malignancies showing threshold growth was significantly smaller than that of non-HCC malignancies without threshold growth (22.2 mm vs. 42.9 mm, p = 0.040). Similar results were found for HCCs; however, the difference was not significant (26.8 mm vs. 33.1 mm, p = 0.184). Additionally, Fat-in-nodule was more frequent in HCCs than in non-HCC malignancies (99/616 vs. 2/58, p = 0.010). When threshold growth and fat-in-nodule were considered as ancillary and major features, respectively, LR-5 sensitivity (73.2% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.289) and specificity (98.2% vs. 98.5%, p > 0.999) were comparable to the LI-RADS v2018.

CONCLUSION

Threshold growth is not a significant diagnostic indicator of HCC and is more common in non-HCC malignancies. The diagnostic performance of LR-5 was comparable when threshold growth was recategorized as an ancillary feature and replaced by a more HCC-specific ancillary feature.

Diagnostic performance of MRI using extracellular contrast agents versus gadoxetic acid for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the first-line tool for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver diseases. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the performance of MRI using extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI) with that using gadoxetic acid (EOB-MRI) for diagnosing HCC.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies comparing the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI with that of EOB-MRI in patients with suspected HCC until 31 May 2020. The bivariate random-effects model was used to pool the performance and further subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included evaluating a total of 1002 patients. ECA-MRI revealed significantly higher per-lesion sensitivity in the diagnosis of HCC than EOB-MRI did (0.76 vs 0.63, P = .002). For modified EOB-MRI (mEOB-MRI) using extended washout to the transitional phase (TP) or hepatobiliary phase (HBP), the sensitivity increased compared with that of EOB-MRI using restrictive washout in the portal venous phase (PVP) (0.74 vs 0.63, P = .07). No significant difference among the specificities of ECA-MRI, EOB-MRI, and mEOB-MRI (0.96, 0.98, and 0.93, respectively) was found. The sensitivity for lesions < 20 mm was significantly lower than that for lesions ≥ 20mm (0.66 vs 0.87, P = .01) only for ECA-MRI, which achieved higher sensitivity in Asian patients or with a 3.0 T scanner.

CONCLUSIONS

ECA-MRI outperforms EOB-MRI in per-lesion sensitivity for diagnosing HCC, whereas mEOB-MRI shows a trend towards improved sensitivity compared with EOB-MRI with slightly decreased specificity. Registration: Prospero CRD42020189680.

State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review

In the management of several abdominal disorders, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to significantly improve patient's outcome due to its diagnostic accuracy leading to more appropriate treatment choice. However, its clinical value heavily relies on the quality and quantity of diagnostic information that radiologists manage to convey through their reports. To solve issues such as ambiguity and lack of comprehensiveness that can occur with conventional narrative reports, the adoption of structured reporting has been proposed. Using a checklist and standardized lexicon, structured reports are designed to increase clarity while assuring that all key imaging findings related to a specific disorder are included. Unfortunately, structured reports have their limitations too, such as risk of undue report simplification and poor template plasticity. Their adoption is also far from widespread, and probably the ideal balance between radiologist autonomy and report consistency of has yet to be found. In this article, we aimed to provide an overview of structured reporting proposals for abdominal MRI and of works assessing its value in comparison to conventional free-text reporting. While for several abdominal disorders there are structured templates that have been endorsed by scientific societies and their adoption might be beneficial, stronger evidence confirming their imperativeness and added value in terms of clinical practice is needed, especially regarding the improvement of patient outcome.

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.

Comparison of the current guidelines for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance of current guidelines applicable to the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) using gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-one hepatic lesions (149 HCCs, six other malignancies, 86 benign lesions) in 177 patients at risk of HCC without a history of previous treatment for hepatic malignancy in a tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. Either histopathology results or long-term (> 24 months) follow-up images were used as a standard of reference. All lesions were categorized according to the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Korean Liver Cancer Study Group-National Cancer Center (KLCSG-NCC) guidelines. The sensitivity and specificity thereof were assessed using a generalized estimation equation.

RESULTS

For gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, LI-RADS (95%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 88-98) and EASL (94%, 95% CI 86-97) yielded the highest specificity, while EASL yielded the lowest sensitivity (54% [95% CI 46-62]). APASL yielded the highest sensitivity (91% [95% CI 86-95]) with the lowest specificity (78% [95% CI 69-86]). KLCSG-NCC showed balanced sensitivity (85% [79-90]) and specificity (88% [95% CI 80-93]). Differences were more prominent in small nodules between 1 and 2 cm.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of current guidelines for HCC on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was significantly different, and a potential inverse association between sensitivity and specificity was observed.

KEY POINTS

• EASL and LI-RADS yielded the highest specificity with the lowest sensitivity, whereas APASL yielded the highest sensitivity with the lowest specificity. • Differences in the diagnostic performances of guidelines were prominent in small nodules between 1 and 2 cm. • Additional evaluation of CT findings improved the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy of EASL and LI-RADS. Although doing so decreased specificity, it remained above 89-90%.

Retrospective analysis of current guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in at-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of the updated HCC guidelines using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

METHODS

In this study, patients at risk of HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI following US/CT surveillance were retrospectively recruited from 3 centers. Three radiologists independently evaluated hepatic nodule imaging features relevant to the diagnostic criteria outlined in each guideline. Per-lesion sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared between guidelines using logistic regression with a generalized estimating equation. Inter-observer agreements on imaging features were determined using Fless κ statistics.

RESULTS

Altogether, 447 nodules (310 HCCs, 20 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas, 2 cholangiocarcinomas, and 115 benign entities) measuring 1-3 cm from 386 patients were assessed. The KLCA-NCC and APASL guidelines showed the highest sensitivity (82.3-90.6%, p < .001) and accuracy (83.9-88.6%) among the five guidelines. The OPTN/UNOS guideline showed the highest specificity (94.9-97.1%), followed by the AASLD/LI-RADS, EASL, KLCA-NCC, and APASL guidelines, with significant difference only with the APASL guideline. The diagnostic performance of the updated AASLD/LI-RADS and EASL guidelines and of the KLCA-NCC and APASL guidelines was comparable (p > .05). Inter-observer agreement was substantial to almost perfect (κ = 0.73-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

For the diagnosis of HCC using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, the KLCA-NCC and APASL guidelines showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy. The OPTN/UNOS guideline showed the highest specificity. Acknowledging their relative strengths and weaknesses could help adapt the diagnostic criteria according to the clinical context.

KEY POINTS

• APASL and KLCA-NCC provided significantly the highest sensitivity and accuracy, followed by AASLD/LI-RADS and EASL in an endemic area for hepatitis B. • OPTN/UNOS showed the highest specificity, followed by AASLD/LI-RADS, EASL, KLCA-NCC, and APASL guidelines, with significant difference only with APASL. • Broadened definition of arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and the size of the lesion eligible to apply diagnostic criteria may improve the diagnostic performance for HCC in an endemic area for hepatitis B.

Extended application of subtraction arterial phase imaging in LI-RADS version 2018: a strategy to improve the diagnostic performance for hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) utilizing subtraction AP (arterial phase) imaging only for T1 hyperintense observations compared with the detection of HCC on subtraction AP imaging that included T1 hyper-, iso-, and hypointense lesions on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 234 patients (311 observations including 239 HCCs) at high risk for HCC who underwent gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI with subtraction AP imaging between 2015 and 2017. Arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) was divided into two subtypes: conventional APHE, where subtraction AP imaging is used to detect APHE only for T1 hyperintense observations; and modified APHE, where subtraction AP imaging is applied to T1 hyper-, iso-, and hypointense lesions. Two readers independently reviewed all observations and the per-observation diagnostic performances were compared using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Modified nonrim APHE showed significantly higher sensitivity than conventional nonrim APHE (90.0% vs 82.8%; p < 0.001) for diagnosing HCC, without a significant difference in specificity (66.7% vs 68.1%; p > 0.999). The LR-5 category with modified nonrim APHE provided better sensitivity than the LR-5 with conventional nonrim APHE (70.3% vs 63.2%; p < 0.001), without a significant decrease in specificity (94.4% vs 95.8%; p > 0.999).

CONCLUSION

Extended application of subtraction AP imaging for T1 hypo- or isointense observations on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI can improve sensitivity in the diagnosis of HCC without a significant difference in specificity.

KEY POINTS

• Modified nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE), extended application of subtraction arterial phase imaging for T1 hypo- or isointense observation, outperforms conventional nonrim APHE. • The LR-5 category with modified nonrim APHE provided better sensitivity in diagnosing HCC than the LR-5 with conventional APHE, without a significant decrease in specificity.

Validation of the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center 2018 Criteria for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background/Aims

This study aimed to assess the validity and diagnostic performance of the imaging criteria of Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) 2018 using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk patients for HCC.

Methods

This retrospective study included 142 treatment-naïve patients (81 patients who underwent MRI with extracellular contrast agent and 61 who underwent MRI with hepatobiliary agent; 183 lesions including 149 HCCs) with a high risk of HCC who underwent multiphasic contrast-enhanced MRI from January to December 2015. All lesions were categorized according to the KLCA-NCC 2018 imaging diagnostic criteria by two readers, and per-lesion diagnostic performances were compared.

Results

According to the KLCA-NCC 2018, none (0%) of the 13 benign category lesions, 11 (44.0%) of 25 indeterminate category lesions, 15 (93.8%) of 16 probable HCC category lesions, and 97 (99.0%) of 98 definite HCC category lesions were ultimately diagnosed as HCCs. The sensitivity and specificity of definite HCC category were 65.1% and 97.1%, respectively, and those of the combination of definite and probable HCC categories were 75.2% and 94.1%, respectively. The sensitivity of the combination of definite and probable HCC categories was significantly higher than that of definite HCC (P<0.001), but the specificity was not significantly lower (P>0.999).

Conclusions

The noninvasive imaging diagnosis of KLCA-NCC 2018 on MRI is reliable and useful for diagnosing HCC in high-risk patients. Combining definite and probable HCC categories of KLCA-NCC 2018 improves the sensitivity while maintaining a high specificity.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

KEY POINTS

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

Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 ancillary features to upgrade from LR-4 to LR-5 on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI

OBJECTIVES

The current LR-5 criteria of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) determined by only major features provide high specificity, but unsatisfactorily low sensitivity for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to identify significant ancillary features (AFs) in LI-RADS version 2018 and develop the upgraded LR-5 criteria to improve diagnostic performance on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 280 patients (366 observations including 281 HCCs) at high-risk for HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between 2015 and 2017. Two readers evaluated major features and AFs for each observation and assigned a LI-RADS category. Independently significant AFs were identified through logistic regression analysis. Upgraded LR-5 criteria were developed by combining independently significant AFs with LR-4 assigned by major features alone. Sensitivities and specificities of the diagnostic criteria were compared using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Two of the AFs favoring malignancy in general (mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity and hepatobiliary phase hypointensity) and two of the AFs favoring HCC in particular (nonenhancing "capsule" and mosaic architecture) were independently significant features for diagnosing HCC. By using the upgraded LR-5 criteria (LR-4 by major features alone + each aforementioned AF), sensitivities were significantly increased (69.4-76.9%) compared with the standard LR-5 (66.2%; all, p ≤ 0.004), whereas specificities (95.3-96.5%) were not significantly different (96.5%; all, p > 0.999).

CONCLUSIONS

Independently significant AFs may be used to upgrade from LR-4 to LR-5 to improve sensitivity without impairing specificity on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

KEY POINTS

• Independently significant AFs for HCC on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI were mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity, hepatobiliary phase hypointensity, nonenhancing "capsule," and mosaic architecture. • When LR-4 criteria by major features alone in combination with significant AFs were upgraded to LR-5, sensitivities were higher than the standard LR-5, without impairing specificity. • Independently significant ancillary features in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 may be used to upgrade from LR-4 to LR-5 to improve sensitivity without impairing specificity on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

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.

CT and MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018 for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of the LR-5 category for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the pooled proportion of HCC in each Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category with CT and MRI, using LI-RADS version 2018.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to December 7, 2019, for studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS version 2018 for HCC. Risk for bias and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Random-effects models were used to determine the summary estimates of the diagnostic performance of LR-5 and the pooled proportion of HCC for each LI-RADS category.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis, consisting of 2,708 observations with 1,841 HCCs. The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of the LR-5 category for diagnosing HCC were 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61%-78%) and 91% (95% CI, 89%-93%), respectively. No HCCs were reported for LR-1 and LR-2. The pooled proportions of HCC were 31% (95% CI, 12%-50%) for LR-3, 64% (95% CI, 47%-80%) for LR-4, 95% (95% CI, 93%-96%) for LR-5, 54% (95% CI, 30%-77%) for LR-TIV, and 33% (95% CI, 21%-46%) for LR-M. The proportions of HCC were significantly different among the LI-RADS categories (P = .022).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-5 category of LI-RADS version 2018 provided moderate sensitivity and high specificity for diagnosing HCC. Higher LI-RADS categories from LR-3 to LR-5 included greater proportions of HCC.

Performance of LI-RADS version 2018 CT treatment response algorithm in tumor response evaluation and survival prediction of patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation

Background

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System treatment response algorithm (LI-RADS TRA) was developed to evaluate the tumor response of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after locoregional treatments. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of LI-RADS computed tomography (CT) TRA version 2018 in tumor response assessment and survival prediction of patients with single HCC after radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Methods

Forty patients who underwent RFA for single HCC between 2010 and 2016 were included in this retrospective study. The overall survival (OS) data from all the patients after the first therapy was collected. Two readers independently assessed the pretreatment (within 7 d) and posttreatment (within 90 d after RFA) CT manifestations using the LI-RADS version 2018 CT TRA. Inter-reader agreement was assessed. Another radiologist re-evaluated any divergent results and came to the final conclusion. The performance of LI-RADS version 2018 CT TRA for tumor response assessment and predicting survival of patients with single HCC after RFA was evaluated.

Results

Interobserver agreement was moderate between the 2 readers [κ=0.602, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.390–0.814] when using LI-RADS version 2018 TRA to evaluate tumor response for patients with single HCC after RFA. Patients classified as LR-TR viable had significantly lower OS than those classified as LR-TR nonviable (P=0.005) and LR-TR equivocal (P=0.036). However, the OS between LR-TR nonviable and LR-TR equivocal did not differ significantly (P=0.901).

Conclusions

LI-RADS version 2018 CT TRA can be applied to predict viable or nonviable HCC after RFA. Patients with LR-TR viable had significantly lower OS than those with LR-TR nonviable and LR-TR equivocal. More research is needed to validate the performance of LI-RADS version 2018 TRA in HCC tumor response evaluation, to better grasp the use of the tie-breaking rule, and to improve the accuracy of prediction for tumor viability.