Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for categorising hepatic observations in patients at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma

Comparative Performance of 2018 LI-RADS versus Modified LIRADS (mLI-RADS): An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018) is used for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A recently proposed modification (known as mLI-RADS) demonstrated improved sensitivity while maintaining specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of LI-RADS category 5 (definite HCC) for HCC. However, mLI-RADS requires multicenter validation.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the performance of v2018 and mLI-RADS for liver lesions in a large, heterogeneous, multi-national cohort of patients at risk for HCC.

STUDY TYPE

Systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) [Study Protocol: https://osf.io/duys4].

POPULATION

2223 observations from 1817 patients (includes all LI-RADS categories; females = 448, males = 1361, not reported = 8) at elevated risk for developing HCC (based on LI-RADS population criteria) from 12 retrospective studies.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

1.5T and 3T; complete liver MRI with gadoxetate disodium, including axial T2w images and dynamic axial fat-suppressed T1w images precontrast and in the arterial, portal venous, transitional, and hepatobiliary phases. Diffusion-weighted imaging was used when available.

ASSESSMENT

Liver observations were categorized using v2018 and mLI-RADS. The diagnostic performance of each system's category 5 (LR-5 and mLR-5) for HCC were compared.

STATISTICAL TESTS

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2 was applied to determine risk of bias and applicability. Diagnostic performances were assessed using the likelihood ratio test for sensitivity and specificity and the Wald test for PPV. The significance level was P < 0.05.

RESULTS

17% (2/12) of the studies were considered low risk of bias (244 liver observations; 164 patients). When compared to v2018, mLR-5 demonstrated higher sensitivity (61.3% vs. 46.5%, P < 0.001), similar PPV (85.3% vs. 86.3%, P = 0.89), and similar specificity (85.8% vs. 90.8%, P = 0.16) for HCC.

DATA CONCLUSION

This study confirms mLR-5 has higher sensitivity than LR-5 for HCC identification, while maintaining similar PPV and specificity, validating the mLI-RADS proposal in a heterogeneous, international cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Assessment of arterial-phase hyperenhancement and late-phase washout of hepatocellular carcinoma-a meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with SonoVue® and Sonazoid®

OBJECTIVES

The recognition of arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and washout during the late phase is key for correct diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare SonoVue®-enhanced and Sonazoid®-enhanced ultrasound in the assessment of HCC enhancement and diagnosis.

METHODS

Studies were included in the analysis if they reported data for HCC enhancement in the arterial phase and late phase for SonoVue® or in the arterial phase and Kupffer phase (KP) for Sonazoid®. Forty-two studies (7502 patients) with use of SonoVue® and 30 studies (2391 patients) with use of Sonazoid® were identified. In a pooled analysis, the comparison between SonoVue® and Sonazoid® CEUS was performed using chi-square test. An inverse variance weighted random-effect model was used to estimate proportion, sensitivity, and specificity along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

In the meta-analysis, the proportion of HCC showing APHE with SonoVue®, 93% (95% CI 91-95%), was significantly higher than the proportion of HCC showing APHE with Sonazoid®, 77% (71-83%) (p < 0.0001); similarly, the proportion of HCC showing washout at late phase/KP was significantly higher with SonoVue®, 86% (83-89%), than with Sonazoid®, 76% (70-82%) (p < 0.0001). The sensitivity and specificity for the detection of APHE plus late-phase/KP washout detection in HCC were also higher with SonoVue® than with Sonazoid® (sensitivity 80% vs 52%; specificity 80% vs 73% in studies within unselected patient populations).

CONCLUSION

APHE and late washout in HCC are more frequently observed with SonoVue® than with Sonazoid®. This may affect the diagnostic performance of CEUS in the diagnosis of HCCs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Meta-analysis data show the presence of key enhancement features for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is different between ultrasound contrast agents, and arterial hyperenhancement and late washout are more frequently observed at contrast-enhanced ultrasound with SonoVue® than with Sonazoid®.

KEY POINTS

• Dynamic enhancement features are key for imaging-based diagnosis of HCC. • Arterial hyperenhancement and late washout are more often observed in HCCs using SonoVue®-enhanced US than with Sonazoid®. • The existing evidence for contrast-enhanced US may need to be considered being specific to the individual contrast agent.

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.

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.

FI-CEUS: a solution to improve the diagnostic accuracy in MRI LI-RADS-indeterminate (LR-3/4) FLLs at risk for HCC

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fusion imaging contrast-enhanced ultrasound (FI-CEUS) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) LI-RADS-indeterminate (LR-3/4) and conventional ultrasound undetected focal liver lesions (FLLs) in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Between February 2020 and July 2021, 71 FLLs in 63 patients were registered for diagnostic performance evaluation respectively for ultrasound-guided thermal ablation evaluation in this retrospective study. Diagnostic performance regarding FLLs was compared between FI-CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI).

Results

For diagnostic performance evaluation, among 71 lesions in 63 patients, the diagnostic efficacy of FI-CEUS with LI-RADS was significantly higher than that of CE-MRI (P < 0.05) in both overall and hierarchical comparison (except for the group with lesion diameter ≥2 cm). For malignant lesions, the proportion of arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and washout on FI-CEUS was higher than that on CE-MRI (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

FI-CEUS has a high value in the precise qualitative diagnosis of small FLLs (<2 cm) of MRI LI-RADS-indeterminate diagnosis (LR-3/4) that are undetected by conventional ultrasound in patients at risk for HCC and can be a good supplementary CE-MRI diagnostic method for thermal ablation evaluation.

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.

Efficacy of LR-5 and LR-4/5 by Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (MRI) for hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

To comprehensive investigate the diagnostic efficacy of LR-5 and LR-4/5 by MRI LI-RADS of suspected liver nodules. A comprehensive search of authenticated international databases including PubMed/Medline, Ovid, Embase, Web of Science as well as a series of nation-level databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure was carried out to look for related studies with respect to the diagnostic performance of MRI LR-5 or LR-4/5 for HCC. Subsequently, main data including the basic information of the articles incorporated as well as main outcomes, including diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or original data like true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative values were extracted. Next, forest plots were generated to reveal the pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity of LR-5 and LR-4/5 by LI-RADS were comparatively satisfactory. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of MRI LR-5 with respect to pathologically diagnosed HCC were 0.73 [95% CI 0.7-0.75] and 0.88 [95% CI 0.86-0.90] respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI LR-4/5 were 0.77 [95% CI 0.75-0.80] and 0.82 [95% CI 0.79-0.85] respectively. Through this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found a promisingly satisfactory diagnostic efficacy of LR-5 and LR-4/5 by MRI LI-RADS of suspected malignant liver nodules, manifested by optimal diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease. Worldwide, it ranks sixth in terms of incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer-related deaths. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is used as an add-on test to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma after prior diagnostic tests such as abdominal ultrasound or measurement of alpha-foetoprotein, or both. According to guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging investigation, with either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may show the typical hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks in people with cirrhosis, which will be sufficient to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas show atypical imaging features, and therefore, are missed at imaging. Dynamic CEUS images are obtained similarly to CT and MRI images. CEUS differentiates between arterial and portal venous phases, in which sonographic hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks, such as arterial hyperenhancement and subsequent washout appearance, are investigated. The advantages of CEUS over CT and MRI include real-time imaging, use of contrast agents that do not contain iodine and are not nephrotoxic, and quick image acquisition. Despite the advantages, the use of CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm for HCC remains controversial, with disagreement on relevant guidelines. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival as the conflicting results can be a consequence of an inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Therefore, assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is needed for either diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma or ruling it out in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. 2. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with chronic liver disease and identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The last date of search was 5 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods to screen studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used the bivariate model and provided estimates of summary sensitivity and specificity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We presented uncertainty-of-the-accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 6546 participants. Studies were published between 2001 and 2021. We judged all 23 studies at high-risk of bias in at least one domain, and 13/23 studies at high concern for applicability. Most studies used different reference standards to exclude the presence of the target condition. The time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. We also had major concerns on their applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. - CEUS for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.8% (95% CI 69.4% to 84.4%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 89.1% to 96.6%) (23 studies, 6546 participants; very low-certainty evidence). - CEUS for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 62.9% to 87.6%) and specificity 92.7% (95% CI 86.8% to 96.1%) (13 studies, 1257 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, including only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted with no knowledge of the results about the index test, showed no differences in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that by using CEUS, as an add-on test following abdominal ultrasound, to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would unnecessarily undergo further testing or inappropriate treatment. As to resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 23% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would incorrectly be unresected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo further inappropriate testing or treatment. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias of the included studies, heterogeneity, and imprecision of the results and concerns on their applicability limit our ability to draw confident conclusions.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: Lights and shadows in hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocellular carcinoma diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is considered a secondary examination compared to computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), due to the risk of misdiagnosing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The introduction of CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (CEUS LI-RADS) might overcome this limitation. Even though data from the literature seems promising, its reliability in real-life context has not been well-established yet.

AIM

To test the accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS for correctly diagnosing HCC and ICC in cirrhosis.

METHODS

CEUS LI-RADS class was retrospectively assigned to 511 nodules identified in 269 patients suffering from liver cirrhosis. The diagnostic standard for all nodules was either biopsy (102 nodules) or CT/MRI (409 nodules). Common diagnostic accuracy indexes such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed for the following associations: CEUS LR-5 and HCC; CEUS LR-4 and 5 merged class and HCC; CEUS LR-M and ICC; and CEUS LR-3 and malignancy. The frequency of malignant lesions in CEUS LR-3 subgroups with different CEUS patterns was also determined. Inter-rater agreement for CEUS LI-RADS class assignment and for major CEUS pattern identification was evaluated.

RESULTS

CEUS LR-5 predicted HCC with a 67.6% sensitivity, 97.7% specificity, and 99.3% PPV (P < 0.001). The merging of LR-4 and 5 offered an improved 93.9% sensitivity in HCC diagnosis with a 94.3% specificity and 98.8% PPV (P < 0.001). CEUS LR-M predicted ICC with a 91.3% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity, and 99.6% NPV (P < 0.001). CEUS LR-3 predominantly included benign lesions (only 28.8% of malignancies). In this class, the hypo-hypo pattern showed a much higher rate of malignant lesions (73.3%) than the iso-iso pattern (2.6%). Inter-rater agreement between internal raters for CEUS-LR class assignment was almost perfect (n = 511, k = 0.94, P < 0.001), while the agreement among raters from separate centres was substantial (n = 50, k = 0.67, P < 0.001). Agreement was stronger for arterial phase hyperenhancement (internal k = 0.86, P < 2.7 × 10^-214; external k = 0.8, P < 0.001) than washout (internal k = 0.79, P < 1.6 × 10^-202; external k = 0.71, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CEUS LI-RADS is effective but can be improved by merging LR-4 and 5 to diagnose HCC and by splitting LR-3 into two subgroups to differentiate iso-iso nodules from other patterns.

Differentiating malignant and benign focal liver lesions in children using CEUS LI-RADS combined with serum alpha-fetoprotein

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can be used to diagnose focal liver lesions (FLLs) in children. The America College of Radiology developed the CEUS liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) for standardizing CEUS diagnosis of FLLs in adult patients. Until now, no similar consensus or guidelines have existed for pediatric patients to improve imaging interpretation as adults.

AIM

To evaluate the performance of CEUS LI-RADS combined with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in differentiating benign and malignant FLLs in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and January 2021, patients ≤ 18 years old who underwent CEUS for FLLs were retrospectively evaluated. The following criteria for diagnosing malignancy were proposed: Criterion I considered LR-4, LR-5, or LR-M lesions as malignancies; criterion II regarded LR-4, LR-5 or LR-M lesions with simultaneously elevated AFP (≥ 20 ng/mL) as malignancies; criterion III took LR-4 Lesions with elevated AFP or LR-5 or LR-M lesions as malignancies. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated to determine the diagnostic value of the aforementioned criteria.

RESULTS

The study included 63 nodules in 60 patients (mean age, 11.0 ± 5.2 years; 26 male). There were no statistically significant differences between the specificity, accuracy, or AUC of criterion II and criterion III (95.1% vs 80.5%, 84.1% vs 87.3%, and 0.794 vs 0.902; all P > 0.017). Notably, criterion III showed a higher diagnostic sensitivity than criterion II (100% vs 63.6%; P < 0.017). However, both the specificity and accuracy of criterion I was inferior to those of criterion II and criterion III (all P < 0.017). For pediatric patients more than 5 years old, the performance of the three criteria was overall similar when patients were subcategorized by age when compared to all patients in aggregate.

CONCLUSION

CEUS LI-RADS combined with AFP may be a powerful diagnostic tool in pediatric patients. LR-4 with elevated AFP, LR-5 or LR-M lesions is highly suggestive of malignant tumors.

Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and third in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-fetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study (computed tomography (CT) or MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is considered valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to surgical resection could improve the prognosis. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma may, therefore, be missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of MRI in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 9 November 2021. We manually searched articles retrieved, contacted experts, handsearched abstract books from meetings held during the last 10 years, and searched for literature in OpenGrey (9 November 2021). Further information was requested by e-mails, but no additional information was provided. No data was obtained through correspondence with investigators. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and we tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies, with 4841 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability, we judged 15% (5/34) of studies to be at low concern and 85% (29/34) of studies to be at high concern mostly owing to characteristics of the participants, most of whom were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation, and due to pathology of the explanted liver being the only reference standard. MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 84.4% (95% CI 80.1% to 87.9%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 90.1% to 96.1%) (34 studies, 4841 participants; low-certainty evidence). MRI for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI 77.6% to 89.3%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 88.3% to 95.9%) (16 studies, 2150 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that using MRI as a second-line imaging modality to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 16% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 16% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

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.

Diagnostic role of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography versus conventional B-mode ultrasonography in cirrhotic patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study

Background

Early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is very important for the prognosis of patients. However, there are very few studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and B-mode ultrasonography for early HCC in cirrhotic patients.

Methods

This retrospective study included cirrhotic patients, who were suspected of early HCC between January 2020 and June 2021. The diagnosis of patients was based on the pathology results of surgery or biopsy. Demographic and clinical characteristics of included patients were recorded. The diagnoses of suspected lesions using both types of ultrasonography were recorded, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy of early HCC in cirrhotic patients were calculated.

Results

Eventually, 137 patients with solitary lesions in the liver were included in this study, including 89 patients diagnosed with HCC and 48 patients diagnosed with non-HCC. The median diameter of suspected lesions was 26 mm, and the median level of alpha fetoprotein (AFP) was 37.2 ng/mL. When comparing the demographic and clinical characteristics of cirrhotic patients with HCC and non-HCC, it was found that patients with HCC had significantly higher levels of AFP than those with non-HCC (P=0.03). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CEUS in early HCC were 73%, 93.8%, 95.6%, 65.2% and 80.3%, respectively. In CEUS, all of these parameters were much higher than those in B-mode ultrasonography, i.e., 64%, 75%, 82.6%, 52.9%, and 67.9%. It was also found that the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was much higher than that of B-mode ultrasonography especially regarding lesions <20 mm. To further improve the sensitivity of CEUS in early HCC, AFP was combined with CEUS for the diagnosis of early HCC. As a result, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CEUS combined with AFP level were 83.1%, 87.5%, 92.5%, 73.7%, and 84.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

Our study confirmed that CEUS' diagnostic accuracy for early HCC in cirrhotic patients was significantly higher than that of B-mode ultrasonography. However, the sensitivity of CEUS needs to be improved further, and the combination of CEUS and AFP level may be a potential solution.